You’ve heard me talking about knowing your donors’ identity or identities. One of the classic examples is cat people versus dog people: it’s simple, there are two options, and you can see how messaging would be different for each group.

But it took a for-profit to give an interesting example of a next logical step in the identity process: Tito’s Vodka for Dog People (which I learned about through the Neuromarketing blog, to give credit where it’s due). They have a Dog Blog, dog-based social media campaigns, swag like leashes, bandanas and dog toys, and opportunities to donate to (or have the net revenues from swag go to) ASPCA and Emancipet. Moreover, they tell the story of how dogs are important to them, down to Roscoe, the dog-in-residence at their distillery.

Part of this is likely that dogs are very important to them as a company; part is also that many people identify as dog people (and many of those probably drink vodka). Thus, it’s either a smart and authentic or authentic and smart face to put into the marketplace.

But, wait, I hear you cry! Don’t you preach having the identity tied to something that you do as an organization? After all, vodka and dogs are hardly linked, certainly not as much as you expressing your dog-person identity in donating to an animal shelter.

You are absolutely right (and thank you for reading previous discussions of identity so closely). Tito’s isn’t playing on an identity that relates to why people drink their vodka.

But what they are communicating is a shared identity: we are dog people, just like you.

This shared identity, especially when tied to a donor identity reflecting why people give to your organization, is powerful.

An example of this is from our work with the DonorVoice Pre-Test Tool. This tool is basically A/B testing on steroids, done before you send a campaign so you can optimize the messaging. (That’s all that’s necessary as background here; believe me, I can give personally give you a full description  if you wish or you can watch this brief video here. )

Often, we will test what voice or voices are most effective for a nonprofit, whether it’s a volunteer, someone they’ve helped, the mother of a child, a fellow donor, a celebrity, the CEO/ED, etc. Not surprisingly, the CEO/ED, representing the organizational (read: boring) viewpoint, has never ever ever ever ever ever won.

Except once.

This test was for a large disease organization. Like many such organizations, they have a strong (in both number and commitment) group of donors who have the disease themselves.

The CEO voice won because it said “Like you, I suffer from ____________.” Think the old Hair Club for Men slogan: I’m not just the president, I’m also a member. (Not sure why so many of my references are baldness related. Oh well.)

By putting in that little snippet, this CEO not only humanized herself.  She showed she was like the people who would be receiving her mail and email. She shared an identity with them. We love to give to people with whom we share an identity.

And thus she was the only CEO to be a strong voice for their organization in fundraising.

What’s the lesson here (other than don’t let your CEO come within a country mile of your appeals if they have no related story to tell)? For me, it’s that you can create a next-level identity experience for your donors by not only activating their donor identity, but identifying with it with the voice and messaging you choose to use.

How are you putting shared identity to work?

Nick