Behavioral Science Posts

4 Behavioral Science Tips for #GivingTuesday

Are you ready for #GivingTuesday? Having recently reviewed a bunch of #GivingTuesday emails from different charities I’m sure as a sector we can do better. As a behavioral scientist, three observations stood out. The majority of nonprofits are using a match offer for #GivingTuesday. I won’t argue against such an offer here. We’ve covered […]

Learn More October 23, 2018

Institutionalizing Myopia

Amazon recently scrapped a machine-learning based recruiting tool. Its sin? It was discriminating against women. Why would a machine pick up this very human bias? The machine learned by looking at resumes submitted to Amazon over the previous decade. Since the tech sector skews male, especially for technical roles (see chart from Reuters at right), […]

Learn More October 19, 2018

Top Five Barriers to Retention

We fundraisers love lists. Most are of the “Top Five Steps to Success” variety. Frankly, I’ve always been more intrigued with the “Top Five Steps NOT to Take”. Just as someone who’s just learning to ride a bike wouldn’t attempt to mount it wearing a 40-pound backpack or peddle with flat tires, there are several […]

Learn More October 15, 2018

Learning from Politics: Chip In Change for Change

You’ve seen the headlines: “Americans more divided than ever”, “Gridlock reaching threat level crimson, which is worse than red somehow”, and “Pelosi-McConnell West-Side-Story-style dancing knife fight leaves two dead; four injured.” The two major parties here in the United States seemingly can’t agree on anything. But here’s a ray of hope. They can agree on […]

Learn More October 3, 2018

Fundraisers I Fear: Part 3- Those Who Guess About Donors

In Fundraisers I Fear Part 1 and Part 2 I noted that two of the great handicaps facing many fundraisers is their inability to seek and determine reality while safely snuggled in a cocoon of self-belief and their ignorance of basic facts. The Third Fear, to complete this trilogy of traits that scare the hell out of me, is […]

Learn More September 28, 2018

How Can the DonorVoice Nudge Unit Help You?

Ok, so what can decision science do for you and your cause? The possibilities are limitless. In fact, there is a whole sub-field within the Decision-Making field dedicated to philanthropic behavior. From the widely known (but not widely practiced!) “identifiable victim effect” to the less known “unit asking”, Behavioral Science could make people feel […]

Learn More September 26, 2018

Introducing the DonorVoice Nudge Unit

What’s your biggest fundraising challenge? What did you set out to solve last year (or the year before, or the year before…) only to be facing it again in 2018? At last ! Behavioral scientists unite to solve your major fundraising problems. Why as a sector are we forever undermined by perennial problems like […]

Learn More September 24, 2018

The Essential Importance of First-Party Data

Nick just sounded the warning bell about the inaccuracy of third-party data. I want to follow up with a more fundamental question: Even if third-party data were more accurate, why would you want it? After all, looking at the Predictably Inaccurate study from Deloitte, when data-brokers had the data wrong and even when people found out […]

Learn More September 21, 2018

The Fundraisers I Fear

The fundraisers who scare me the most are the ones who are convinced they’re right. Why? Because these are the folks most unlikely to ever change. It is their blind adherence to conviction and convention that endangers the future of their organizations. Unwilling to challenge the status quo of their own efforts they’re most likely to […]

Learn More September 10, 2018

RESEARCH UPDATE: Making Your Match Less Bad

I’m temporarily giving up. We’ve talked about how: Lead gifts work better than matches Lead gifts work waaaaaay better than matches when you can use the lead gift to cover overhead per Gneezy and colleagues Challenges also work better than matches Matches only work for active donors – they have no impact or negative impact […]

Learn More September 6, 2018

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

Q: As a designer who works with non-profits on fundraising strategy, I see the language like the following: “Our supporters help empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs.” I do not think the word “help” is useful–I think “Our supporters empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs. ” is much more engaging. Thoughts?

Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]

Read Full Answer

Q: We started offering a donor cover option last april 1. The data to date suggests this may be dampening giving.eg. those who say yes to donor cover have a lower average gift (based on analysis of 6000+ gifts). I’m wondering if those who give lower gifts feel more guilt and therefore say yes to donor cover or if the presence of donor cover is making people adjust (lower) their gift size to accommodate the extra 3%. Would love any insights you have.

Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]

Read Full Answer

Q: When writing an appeal, I waffle back and forth between writing “Your gift CAN…” or “Your gift WILL…” Any studies of which of these two words is best for an appeal?

The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]

Read Full Answer

Q: Do you have any insight on whether integrating an individual giving appeal with other comms from the charity in both appearance and messaging can uplift results? Or does the actual appeal become ‘lost’ for lack of stand-out?

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

Q: Is there any research on response rate impact in direct mail when referring to a sustainer gift as ongoing or recurring (catching all frequencies) v. monthly or annual?

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

Q: A major conservation nonprofit sends me lots of mail, many of which have on the envelope “time to renew” or “2nd notice.” I find this practice deceptive, especially as I haven’t given to said organization since 1997. It must be effective or they wouldn’t do it. But is it ethical?

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