Building Relationships
Stephanie Strom wrote a piece in Monday’s NY Times, titled: “CARE, in Return to Roots, Will Offer Virtual Packages.”
The fundraising aspect of her article relates to CARE’s embracing of what I’ll call ‘donor choice’ online fundraising — in this case, a campaign that allows donors to create their own ‘virtual CARE packages‘ online, tailored to meet the needs of women or girls in a certain type of situation — e.g., needing health care or educational support or assistance for a micro-business.
We’ve written about some interesting ‘donor choice’ programs before (here and here, for example), and think the approach is spot on, demonstrating where the future of online fundraising lies.
But apart from the example of innovative fundraising, I adore the story Stephanie relates as the core of her article. A post-WWII encounter blossoms into a marriage that (I estimate) must have lasted 60+ years by now … with an original CARE package playing a key role.
Talk about relationship building! Treat yourself to this wonderful story. Thanks Stephanie.
Tom
One response to “Building Relationships”
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
But if you read the fine print, you’ll find that these packages are completely symbolic.
“The items and activities you place in a CARE package are symbolic examples of CARE’s work to provide long-term solutions to poverty, as well as emergency relief. Your donation supports CARE’s global mission and activities, rather than providing a particular initiative or item.
“CARE finds lasting solutions through community-based efforts to improve basic education, help people receive quality health care, increase access to clean water and sanitation, expand economic opportunity, protect natural resources and more.”
I’m feeling that back to the future feel again… donors will give to these but not read the footnote. Then a journalist will track them down and find out they aren’t going where the donors think they are. Care will respond that they never said they were.
Ugh. We learned all of this in the 80s and 90s with child sponsorship and then again with Kiva. How many times do we need to retread the same ground?
Label me frustrated.