The “Donor” Identity is Lame
I’m a woman and a coffee lover. But being a coffee lover isn’t one of the most important ways I define myself, while being a woman is.
This simplistic example illustrates the difference between identity presence, whether one has a certain identity, and identity importance, how central that identity is for their sense of self. Our many identities aren’t equally important towards our sense of self, especially in a given context.
Having an identity doesn’t necessarily mean I consider it to be a central part of who I am.
Identity presence determines if one has a certain identity or not.
Identity importance determines how central an identity is for a person.
Why is this relevant to fundraising? If identity is the innate reason someone gives to a specific cause, then the higher its importance and centrality, the more it will affect giving. At least that’s the hypothesis.
But there isn’t just one identity that could explain giving, not even to the same cause. For example, people might sponsor a child because they are parents, or because they were orphans themselves. Each of these natural, innate identities is part of a person’s makeup and relates to the broader cause. More importantly, the values and goals attached to these innate identities can be expressed without ever giving to a charity – e.g. a parent volunteering at the school.
On the other hand, once someone makes a gift to an organization, they immediately acquire the “donor” identity. This is wholly defined by the person’s relationship with the charity and it doesn’t exist outside of the charitable act.
Donor identity – i.e. an organization identity – relates to the act of giving while innate or “natural” identity relates to the person and the broader cause.
Further, donor/organization identity is 100% generic. It describes (not explains) the act of someone giving to anyone.
Innate or Natural Identity explains why Donor A supports Charity A differently from Charity B.
Considering the above in the context of fundraising, two questions come to mind:
-
- What explains giving better; an organization identity (e.g. donor, supporter, volunteer, advocate), or an innate, natural identity that relates to the cause?
- Could identity centrality be as, or more important, than identity presence in driving giving?
In an online study, we recruited people who made a donation to an environmental charity in the last year. That immediately qualifies them as “donors”. We then measured how central this donor identity is for them (donor importance).
Two possible, innate and natural identities that could explain giving to this cause are environmentalist and conservationist. So, we measured the extent to which they identified with each (presence of Identity) and how important each of these were to their sense of self (conservationist centrality and environmentalist centrality).
Finally, we asked them how likely it is they’ll make another gift to the same charity.
What did we find?
-
- Not all innate, natural identities are equal. In this case, conservationist identity was more effective in predicting giving than environmentalist. Even though both identities relate to the same cause, one matters much more for fundraising. As a fundraiser, your goal is to find the supporter identity that matters most in driving giving to your organization.
-
- Natural, innate identity wins over generic, org-centric, donor identity. The organization specific, “donor” identity was less effective in predicting giving than the conservationist identity. “Donor” identity might be easier to use but digging deeper and discovering the relevant, innate identity will yield better results.
It’s a tragic, defining downward of ‘donor-centrism’ to be satisfied with inward-looking, generic, org-centric labels (e.g. supporter, donor, regular giver, sustainer). It’s also more than a bit ironic when folks argue they’re being donor centric by using an organization-centric (and non-unique) label. “Donor-centric” is just a term, not the literal answer…
-
- Identity salience matters a ton and it matters more than identity presence. Conservationist importance was better at predicting giving than conservationist identity presence. What does this mean? Merely identifying as conservationist (presence of Identity) isn’t enough. Only people who consider being a conservationist an important part of who they are give more. The implication is we shouldn’t capture whether a donor merely has a natural identity but whether that identity is central to them. This requires a more refined, two-item measure.
Dig deeper. Don’t be satisfied with lowest common denominator thinking about the people who support your organization.
Nobody’s real “why” for giving is “because I’m a donor”. So why let donor/supporter/volunteer (the act, not the motivation) be as far as we go in understanding human behavior?
Kiki
14 responses to “The “Donor” Identity is Lame”
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
Hi there. Just a reminder that “lame” is an identity itself. Please consider language more thoughtfully, as this is ableist and insensitive. The poor word choice immediately turned me off from the article.
Many words in the English language have multiple meanings. Lame, adjective; (of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble.
“it was a lame statement and there was no excusing his behavior”, similar, Similar:feeble, weak, thin, flimsy.
This is an interesting observation, but how does it translate into fundraising strategy — either for donor acquisition or retention?
The strategy becomes finding people with the innate identity that drives giving to your cause. Once you know the identity – that might require a quick insights project but not always – you can use existing lists, or online data to target people having that identity. Then, you use language – in acquisition and in retention journeys – that reinforces that identity and its goals.
Respectfully, if the only way you can determine a person’s identity is through a survey (rather than giving behavior) what lists could you rent that would provide you with that?
We’re already using lists or existing data (not survey data) to find people with relevant identities e.g. parent, veteran, conservationist and increase engagement and giving for our clients.
Amy,
surveys are used to get a representative sample and gain strategic insights. It’s true that we also advocate zero-party data collection (meaning surveying continuously) and if this is baked into acquisition channels like TM (inbound and out), digital and canvassing you can get this data for everybody; census, not sample. But as Kiki notes, there are “and” statements here, not “or” in practically applying these strategic, survey based insights. There is plenty of 3rd party data or 2nd party with facebook (e.g. affinities) that serve as proxy for various identities and the quality of the proxy varies but it is often in the “good enough” category and much better than continuing with the forever flawed fundraising approach of one-size-fits all.
You should never have “a” control or “a” test that goes to a random nth – both of which presume that everyone is the same. That at least should be the aim. We’re doing this across a whole host of clients, this isn’t theory to nowhere.
Thank you, Kiki. Lots to think about.
Wanted to add a point about this statement: ‘Nobody’s real “why” for giving is “because I’m a donor”. So why let donor/supporter/volunteer (the act, not the motivation) be as far as we go in understanding human behavior?’
I’ve found — as a donor — that with the causes most important to me, “because I’m a donor” ends up being enough. It might be “identity shorthand,” I don’t know; you’re the psychologist. But I have noticed that the emotional weight of “because I’m a donor” shifts over time, from transactional-seeming to truly identity-based.
Again, thank you. Helpful post.
Tom, the “donor” label that you identify with isn’t irrelevant but it lacks any discriminating power and fails to explain why, for example, you as a progressive would never donate (I assume) to Heritage Foundation. Similarly, donors to Heritage would never donate (I assume) to a liberal, political group. You and our hypothetical Heritage donor could equally identify with the “donor” label and be compelled to make sure that you are giving but it fails to explain why you two are different.
Donor Identity will always be subjugated to that deeper, innate part of who you are in explaining behavior. Our larger point is why ever be satisfied with ‘donor’ level understanding and fundraising? It automatically puts us into one-size-fits-all fundraising.
It’s true that you still give to (I’m making this up) to TNC and ACLU; albeit for different reasons (I’d wager). And it’s true that TNC and ACLU are not really sure of your why. And yet you give. The question (which we’ve answered in all our agency work we’re doing) is can those appeals do better if we segment message and audience and match the two. Do we get a greater return on the TNC appeal that has two versions – one written for the enviro (and targeted based on list select, 3rd party data, modeling) and another written for the conservationist? Right now, we make the Conservationist and Environmentalist put in too much cognitive work to see themselves in the generi, “donor + Cause X” appeal. You’ll mentally work harder to see yourself and your values in those appeals but most won’t (look no further than 2nd gift retention rates as partial confirmation).
Thanks for very interesting read.
I am starting to think about what is good example’s of presence identity? If an organisation is British, Swedish, Norwegian, and want’s to recruit British, Swedish and Norwegian Donors, would nationality goes with that natural, innate identity that would be recommended for fundraising?
The innate identity is what connects the donor with the cause. So nationality would be a relevant identity for organisations whose cause is, as an example, the welfare of a certain nationality.
Thank you Kiki, for important definition. I believe that go back in history, to raise the fact “we have also been refugees”, thinking of the 2nd world war, to identify with the cause, is the solution? Or could it be the identity of what is primary need in everyday life, that not goes with refugee’s situation (safety, shelter, warmth..). I do believe strongly in the identify theory, so I am trying my best to make value for it in practical fundraising work.
Best, Camilla
Hi Camilla, both tactics you mention could be used to increase feelings of empathy and social closeness. The more similar we feel to someone, the more likely it is we’ll help them. Identity goes deeper than that. It’s about why one would want to help refugees in the first place. From our work with refugee but also international relief groups, we found there are two identities at play: Helper identity and Globalist identity. The first is about having a sense of responsibility towards less fortunate people while the other is about feeling connected with people around the world. Each of these could explain giving to such causes and each requires different language. As Kevin said in his comment, we’re happy to discuss this in more detail to explain what these two identities are and show you how you could apply them in your work.
Camilla,
I’d draw a distinction between the countries/markets where you do program work and those where you have staff and do fundraising. The latter (Uk, Sweden, Norway) is not likely to be the Identity that is primary (or even secondary) in support of the National Refugee Council. More likely, the Identity cuts across those markets where you fundraise. We’ve done a fair bit with other refugee groups (and international relief more broadly) and have found what we call a “helper Identity” and a “Globalist” Identity. Happy to chat more directly about how we can help here – drop me a line at kschulman@thedonorvoice.com if you like.