We know that, given the options, many donors would give more if they could direct where their gift went (see, for example, here and here).

Yet restricted giving is a giant pain for most fundraisers.  You could end up in your finance department explaining yourself for the rest of your natural life (and some of your unnatural life, rattling the chains you forged in life as a warning for the marketers who would follow).

What if you could get most of the advantages of restricted giving without the disadvantages?

In fact, this technique was about as important as the trust validators we discussed yesterday.  So, by putting today’s post to workyou can compensate for your lack of a four-star Charity Navigator rating.

We looked at five conditions.  In order of preference:

#1 (tie) restricted giving and restricted giving + where needed most

No surprise here.  What surprised us was how close #2 was:

#2: preference in giving:

Note the slight change in copy.  Instead of saying your gift will go to X, you are simply saying what your highest priority is.  How close were these?  On a 100-point scale, restricting your gift was an 80; expressing preference was a 72.  Close enough, as they say, for government work.

#3: Allowing someone to choose their channels of communication:

We were surprised this only came in third.  Previous DonorVoice research has shown that giving someone control of communications is the most powerful tool you can use for getting people to opt in.  For more details on this research, check out this video:

(And you can subscribe to the DonorVoice YouTube channel here for videos like this)

So the fact that donor preferences, even non-binding ones, got a better result than channel control means that they are a powerful tool that can help lift response.

#4: Do nothing.  Not surprising that this comes in last place.

But Wait...

I hear you saying, “But wait. People may prefer to give their preference, but does it really make a difference in the real world?”

The American Diabetes Association tested this in acquisition.  Their control package had no ability to express a preference and their test version allowed someone to share their highest priority among:

• Finding a cure
• Helping patients and families
• Providing access to care for diabetes
• Supporting medical professionals

This test version had a $3.40 increase in average gift and a 11.6% increase in overall revenue.

That’s exactly how we how these test results from the DonorVoice / DMA Nonprofit Federation test will be used – as the seeds from which your own testing may grow.

Please let us know any results from your own testing on preferences so we can share with the Agitator Global Family.

Thanks,

Nick