Q: Is there research showing the effectiveness of publicly stating a goal for a fundraising campaign or event? We often hear arguments both for and against from fundraisers we work with. On the one hand, some believe a goal creates excitement and interest in collectively working (donating) to reach that goal. On the other, some will say once the goal is reached, (potential) donors will think their dollars aren’t needed and not give. Is the key in the messaging (there is always more to be done) more so than the statement of the goal itself?
There’s evidence (see this paper and this one) that people are more motivated to give when there’s a target, provided we’re close at reaching it. Once a certain level has been exceeded e.g. 75%-80%, donations start pouring in. It’s an indirect measure of social proof – it means many people gave – but also of impact – you can be in the group of people who make this happen. But you’re right; donors give less once the target has been reached (an average of £2 – £3 less).
What to do?
Set successive targets to maintain levels of donations. For example, you could set a different goal each day. Then, use yesterday’s donations to show progress towards today’s goal. This way, you constantly motivate people to give with a goal that is almost reached. And of course, test this with your audience.
Behavioral Science Q & A
The questions depend on the cause. Different identities will explain giving to a health charity (connection to disease), different to a conservationist charity (environmentalist) and different to a university (alumnus/a). Even for the same cause, there may be various identities that can explain giving. For example, someone might give to a cancer charity because they’re […]
Read Full Answer
There’s evidence (see this paper and this one) that people are more motivated to give when there’s a target, provided we’re close at reaching it. Once a certain level has been exceeded e.g. 75%-80%, donations start pouring in. It’s an indirect measure of social proof – it means many people gave – but also of […]
Read Full Answer
First of all, it makes a difference if a premium is contingent to the donation or not. Sending an item after a donation has been made without having mentioned it to the supporters beforehand is different to telling them they’ll receive an item if they make a donation. The first is a thank-you gift, which, […]
Read Full Answer
Before we look at the differences between “donor” and “member”, let’s take a step back. There’s evidence that using nouns e.g. “helper” instead of verbs e.g. “help” leads to an increase of the behaviour described by the noun, in this case helping behaviour. The theory behind this is that nouns signal a fixed identity or […]
Read Full Answer
I wish I had a simple answer and a set-in-stone order for all fundraising pitches. Unfortunately, there are different factors at play that should determine not just the order but also the content itself. You ask if a different order needs to be used for foundations, corporate and individual supporters. In my view, a different […]
Read Full Answer
It’s true that in some cases, efforts to correct a misconception result in the opposite e.g. this study showing how trying to correct unsubstantiated beliefs about politics had a “backfire effect” in some instances: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf. So it might not always happen and it might not happen to everyone but the risk is there. The other […]
Read Full Answer