Behavioral Science Posts

How Donors Choose Among Nonprofits: The Role of Identity

There’s an old joke at the right that often feels like nonprofit marketing. While we do and should have ambitions of expanding the charitable giving pie, we also want to secure our own organization’s piece of said pie. One of the points Kevin made yesterday is that organizations are differentiating themselves by creating donor journeys […]

Learn More March 21, 2018

Low Risk Approach to High Reward Discovery

Yesterday Roger outlined the failings of alleged-segmentation systems that aren’t customized to your organization. Today, I’d like to suggest a proven, low-risk approach to dramatic improvement through better segmentation. It’s hard to get away from the significant advantages that come with being a mature nonprofit brand: you can get very good at delivery, incremental efficiency, […]

Learn More March 20, 2018

Fantasyland Fundraising

Grandma Craver always advised: “Never wake a sleeping snake to kill it.” And generally, I try to follow her advice. But, over the weekend The New York Times ran a blockbuster of a piece How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions. Behind the story is the tale of a voter profiling firm named […]

Learn More March 19, 2018

What Ask String Works Best?

The life of a direct response fundraiser is filled with so many questions – far more questions than answers. Take the question, “How much should we ask for?” Usually the question is answered with the conventional application of a formula based on previous giving. For example, 1.0X, 1.5X, 2.0X highest previous gift –or some variation […]

Learn More March 13, 2018

A Little Hair of the Dog

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 […]

Learn More February 28, 2018

Peer-to-Peer Fundraisers: Don’t Run. Dash!

I mean it. Dash right over to Amazon, click and order Dollar Dash: The Behavioral Economics of Peer-to-Peer Fundraising , a practical and powerful guide to the psychology behind P2P fundraising and the factors that drive donors and volunteers with plenty of case studies. In fact, even if you don’t give one whit about peer-to-peer […]

Learn More February 26, 2018

Advocacy Fundraising #3: Finding and Converting Advocates

You’ve defined your Advocate Identity. And you know the slacktivism traps. But, how do you acquire constituents who are advocates, then convert them to donors? There are services like Care2 and CQ Roll Call that will sell you advocates. I’ve heard mixed results from these services, including one recently who said her online advocates finally […]

Learn More February 23, 2018

Advocacy Fundraising #2: Slacktivism Science

Online advocacy has a bad name. Specifically: slacktivism (or clicktivism). Seth Meyers put the prevailing opinion into funny words on SNL: “Look, if you make a Facebook page we will “like” it—it’s the least we can do. But it’s also the most we can do.” This frames the debate well. Is online activism a prelude […]

Learn More February 22, 2018

Don’t Just Turn Down The Volume

The TL/DR (Too Long, Didn’t Read) version of this week’s posts has been: Volume is not a strategy. Not for retention. Not for net income. And especially not for donor satisfaction. Now the painful truth: Lack of volume is also not a strategy. Cutting volume, as many organizations have done successfully, is a great tactic as […]

Learn More February 2, 2018

Donors Are Ticked Off by Excess, Unrequested Solicitation – Who Knew?

Why do results decline as volume goes up? At a basic level, each new communication cannibalizes results from those communications around it. Looking at one study here, researchers found that each additional mailing generated 1.81 Euro in revenues, but that 1.21 Euros of that was cannibalized from future mailings. Thus, only 37% of the revenues […]

Learn More February 1, 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