Am I a Grump Head?
Like most of you, I'm thrilled to see Newsweek report that environmentalism is on the ascendancy in America.
But I can't help recalling a comment made years ago by Jacques Cousteau to the effect that Americans' embrace of the easy task of recycling would actually undermine what was harder and really required, as he saw it a dramatic politicization of the environmental issue that would cause Americans to get outraged, demand environmentally sound policies from their elected officials, and hold them accountable if they didn't deliver.
Here we are about twenty years after that comment, and too often we find ourselves still fighting rear-guard assaults on too many issues like Congressman Pombo's dismantling of the Endangered Species Act or the perennial attack on the Arctic Refuge, while other forward-looking policies like appropriate pricing of energy use or serious auto efficiency standards are considered “too hot” to even get a decent hearing.
Sure, Americans “worry” about the environment, as polls consistently tell us, but they almost never cite the environment as an issue they would go to bat for in the voting booth. In fact, “the environment” has a bad rap among politicians as a “non-lever” (as in voting booth) issue. In other words, one they can ignore whenever necessary to satisfy special interests.
My question to Carl Pope of the Sierra Club and Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense, both quoted in the Newsweek coverage: After many decades of environmental proselytizing, isn't there still a disturbing gap between the claimed “environmental consciousness” of Americans and their will to back it up politically? And what can we do to close that gap? Or am I just being an overly pessimistic grump head?
(Disclosure: Author is a consultant to Environmental Defense and accepts his share of responsibility for the gap.)
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