Next up is The Why Axis, by Uri Gneezy and John List, two of the community of economists who work on charitable giving.

Roger had already covered one item I had noted back in 2013: that 1:1 matches work just as well as 2:1 or 3:1 matches.  And I talked about how people give more when they are closer to a goal in December. But here are three additional insights from this book:

Matches work better when people feel outnumbered.  The authors had solicited a gift for a liberal organization.  They found the match was more effective in red (conservative) states than in blue (liberal) ones.

Why is this?  The authors answer “individuals from a minority group have a stronger sense of social identity.  Accordingly, the social cue of the matching grant acted as a catalyst to trigger people’s “peer identity.”  Thus, the “signal” generated by the leadership gift is likely quite effective in engaging those in the minority political group.”

Put another way, if you feel outnumbered in your political views (as someone who has worked on ten political campaigns, all losing, I sympathize), you are more desiring of validation that you are the sane one; it’s everyone else who is crazy.

This reminds us that charitable giving is very connected to who we are as people.  We want to give in a way that reflects well on us, both to ourselves and to others.

Beauty fades.  In a door-to-door field experiment, students raising money found that offering a raffle ticket with a donation raised about 50% more.  Not surprising.

The study also found that more attractive solicitors raised more.  A solicitor receiving an eight on a 1-to-10 attractiveness scale raised about 50% more than a solicitor who received a six.  So a two-point difference in the attractiveness of the solicitor functioned the same as offering a lottery for your gift.  As someone below the median on such a scale, this was depressing, but also not surprising.

(Also depressing, but not surprising, is that this effect was most strong when men answered the door and women were solicitors.)

What I dog-eared is what people did years later.  Researchers went back to the same households with a straight donation ask.  People who encountered the raffle years earlier continued to give at an elevated rate.  However, those who were more likely to give because of a pleasant-looking solicitor didn’t give at an elevated rate unless a similarly attractive asker asked again.

Once-and-done works again.  You are probably familiar with the (former) Smile Train offer where in acquisition, you are asked for one gift with the promise that you’ll never to be asked again – if you so choose.  What I had not realized is that this offer then went to WonderWork.org, which has a unique organizational structure of multiple different nonprofit brands that tackle single issues with shared overhead and admin costs.

Burn Rescue, one of WonderWork’s brands, tried the same “Smile Train” offer in acquisition:

“After extensive testing in a 2012 mailing of over four million pieces using the “once and done” campaign, WonderWork.org expects to bring in over 350,000 donors and raise around $15 million with this offer in 2013.”

Additionally, because of this organization’s structure, even if someone opts out of future mailings, other brands can solicit those donors in acquisition as well – a true cross-selling opportunity.

Once again,  I hope these insights are of interest to you (and make you want to add the book to your library.

And let us know what books you have dog-eared!

Nick

P.S.  If you have a monthly giving program don’t forget to complete the Agitator Survey designed to find out how many organizations are faced with nasty surprises when they change CRMs and learn they can’t transfer their data.

Click here to complete the Survey.