Make Me Smile, Not Smirk
Given that I’m hiding out in New Zealand, I probably received far fewer email fundraising appeals than most Agitator readers during the end-of-the-year bombardment.
[In fact, my concealment is working, I can’t recall but one NZ-based charity ‘discovering’ me as an online target (compared to three mail appeals).]
Most of what I did receive turned me off … I’m now a dedicated year-end NON-giver.
When I give, I’m more likely to give from the heart, and not as part of a fire sale.
There’s nothing more heartless than being prodded give in order to help some organization meet its year-end target … what do I care about their ginned-up target? Or to take advantage of their ‘Last day only’ 47 to 1 match. Gimme a break.
So make a note fundraisers … Belford won’t give in December. Don’t bother trying.
I might be interested in February or May or September, but you’ll have to offer me more than a clock ticking against some contrived deadline. That might work if I were a watchmaker.
Instead, tell me about how my contribution will help me (not you) accomplish something important that I might care about.
99% of the appeals I received in the final avalanche did no such thing.
Here’s one that came closer than most. It came with the terrific subject line: ‘A reason to smile’. Don’t you think that’s more enticing than: ’12 hours until our 3:1 match ends’ or ‘Only $42,000 short of our goal’?
Give Happiness … I like that.
It made me smile, not smirk.
Tom
One response to “Make Me Smile, Not Smirk”
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
I completely agree! I see so many pieces – and the entire ask is about meeting their fundraising goals. One organization regularly uses “Your annual fund enclosed” as a teaser. WHAT? I had no idea I had an annual fund…
This is lazy fundraising and should definitely be punished with failure.