Want to know what “Donor Centric” should look like?
This is a fantastic Rorschach test for nonprofits (courtesy of a London based shop, Targetbase Claydon Heeley).
What do you see on the left side? What do you see on the right side? If the answer to the both has the words “cute” and/or “funny” then you’re human. If both responses do NOT include the word “opportunity” then you’re likely doomed to never get it.
(CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)
Both responses take the following from their authors,
1) Time
2) Motivation
3) Personal investment
4) Appreciation for the other party
These are, not coincidentally, hallmarks of part of what is required for building relationships. If your organization would never produce something as personalized, responsive, clever and emotive as that on the left then you need to ask why. And you need to systematically break down all those barriers to get to a yes.
It is just that simple and hard all at the same time.
2 responses to “Want to know what “Donor Centric” should look like?”
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
Poor design on your e-blast. You begin the piece with a Rorschach image, then say “This is a fantastic Rorschach test for nonprofits,” asking readers to look at the left and right sides… telling them what they might see and what they should see… BUT, if your readers are like me, they were looking at the Rorschach image, not the image a few paragraphs below, with the two letters. Confusing. Just FYI.
Teri,
Fair point, sorry for any confusion on the formatting. Hopefully you still appreciated the two letters as a great example of what donor-centric can or should look like.