Make Em’ Wear the Schwag

February 4, 2022      Kevin Schulman, Founder, DonorVoice and DVCanvass

Here’s a crazy idea, so crazy it’s genius or maybe it’s just crazy interesting.   I don’t know.  The idea: make the wearing of the “premium” schwag a requirement to give (time or money).  “What the hell did he just type?” I can hear the reader whisper.

I admit to having lingering questions about this idea and the study lending credence to it.  But, ignoring it because it’s too counter-intuitive is not very Agitator-like and generally seems like a bad idea.

Here are the field study basics.  It was for a blood drive done on a University.  The researchers divided the students into two conditions, controlling for all external influences (e.g. major, age, distance from blood center where blood drawn, gender).  The test and control groups got email messages sent through the University promoting the blood drive and recruiting volunteers.

  • The control condition noted that all blood donors are given the option to wear a donor stamp (temporary, on the skin tattoo) to further promote campus awareness of the blood drive.
  • The test condition said “We ask all blood donors to comply and wear this donor stamp to further promote campus awareness of this blood drive”.

Before revealing the results it’s worth asking why the obligatory/force em’ test would win.  What’s the reason to believe?

People want to feel good about themselves and look good to others.  Schwag that publicly signals your altruistic (donate) or civic act (e.g. donate blood, vote) might be seen by others as self-promotional.  This creates conflict for the doer – I don’t want my pure act of giving/doing to be seen as impure.

You might decide not to give or do at all because you are unwilling to do it without being able to ‘show it’ while, paradoxically, being unwilling to show it for fear it makes you look bad.

The obligatory requirement removes this internal struggle.

Here’s what happened.

Those are huge effect sizes, more than doubling the donate blood rate.  The researchers went on, as all good experiments do, to test the role of social image to affirm it’s the reason for the effect.   It is.  People who were less concerned about their image do not respond differently under the obligatory condition.  For those folks the consideration to do/give is not influenced by a desire to share their good acts with the public nor by a fear of how that public display might backfire.

But, there are likely other contributing factors here.  For example, this might create a social norm of “wearing the schwag” as the right thing to do.  It may also confer greater import to the cause by having this compliance requirement.  The thinking being that surely this is a legit, worthwhile and important ask if they require me to publicly promote it.

It’s very counterintuitive on lots of fronts.  Fight the urge to discount it or explain it away and instead, ask yourself what must be true for this to work for me organization?

Kevin

 

 

5 responses to “Make Em’ Wear the Schwag”

  1. Jay Love says:

    I love seeing what real data produces in the way of facts that we can all use.
    I am guessing the reason more valid testing is not put in place might be a deep rooted desire for tradition and status quo to reign supreme.

  2. Cindy Courtier says:

    Does it only work with college kids?

    Heck, no.

    Just look at golf tournament shirts!

  3. Susan Kuhn says:

    This is why God invented the scientific method! And behavioral science. 😎 study! You’ve allowed yourself to be responsibly disrupted. I think they’ve found an opening in that tension between tradition v innovation. My brain is pinging with ideas. Gotta go write them down.🥲

  4. Oh, dear. You’ve now got me thinking about shirts with political slogans. And how wearing them (or fearing what you’ll look like if you don’t wear them) may affect behavior. And even belief. This is powerful stuff. Can be used for good, and also for evil.

    Not saying this should stop us from borrowing principles from psychology and behavioral economics to use for good purposes. Just saying we need to be aware of what’s going on, and guard against misuse. Lots of food for thought.

  5. Brett Cooper says:

    This is fascinating. I’d love more data on this. For example, college campuses (as well as golf tournaments, as referenced in Susan Kuhn’s comment) both are communal settings bound to get people bumping into each other. I wonder if that implicit social pressure helps.

    Alternatively, perhaps when supporters are approached via DM and e-appeals (such that they will necessarily be geographically diffuse and not seeing one another)… this approach may not work. But maybe it will? Maybe some will still want to be seen in their local communities as a supporter. It could be like wearing ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday.

    Fascinating stuff with such great potential. Thanks for sharing this!