Knew or should have known
“What about our telemarketing program?”
We know donors who give you their preferences are worth more. And we know asking for preferences makes people more likely to opt in.
But this was the big fear from a person who runs their nonprofit’s telemarketing program: if we allow people to opt out of using the phone, what about our telemarketing program?
This is a natural fear in part. Asking people if they want to opt out = more people opting out. More people opting out = fewer people on list. Fewer people on list = less revenue.
So, asking people if they want to opt out = less revenue. Q.E.D.
But ask yourself: are the people asking not to be communicated with through a channel the people donating through that channel? The safest bet is no. So you can think of it as a self-segmentation: people will tell you if they will be profitable in a channel.
If that doesn’t work for you, remember that people don’t give you credit for not knowing something. Rather, we tend to use something closer to the legal standard “knew or should have known.”
Did Ken Lay (my business school graduation speaker, which should date my graduation date from business school nicely) know what skullduggery was going on at Enron? Doesn’t matter. He knew or should have known. Ten felony counts.
Did NASA officials know about the O-ring problem in the Challenger disaster? They were sued by a widow from the flight who alleged that they “knew or should have known that the segments of the righthand solid rocket booster would not properly seal.” Even if they just failed to ask the right questions, they are liable.
Is Weinstein Co. liable for Harvey Weinstein’s conduct? Lawsuits say the board “knew or should have known that Weinstein would lure young aspiring actresses into compromising situations.” Weinstein Co. is no more.
You are a nonprofit marketer, in a very different class from felonious execs and negligent administrators.
But the question isn’t whether you know your donors’ preferences. It’s whether you know or should have known them. Even if you just fail to ask the right questions, your donors will hold you liable as if you’d knew but failed to honor them.
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer