Behavioral Science Posts

RFM Segmentation: First Refuge of the Scoundrel

“Wait!”, I hear you cry. “You rail against segmentations that aren’t predictive. But transactional RFM segmentation is not a bad predictor.” And I will stipulate that: A person will tend to give the amounts that they have given in the past. A current donor is more likely to give than a lapsed donor. A donor […]

Learn More January 24, 2018

The Behavioral Science of Fundraising Metrics

You’ve heard us talk about applying behavioral science to help nudge donors in the right direction with topics like: Symmetrically structuring your symbolic gifts The desire to complete sets and goals What happens in your brain as you donate Using the fresh start effect Creating exceptions to mental accounting How to frame your matching gift […]

Learn More January 19, 2018

Are You Playing the Fundraising Lottery?

One of my favorite country music singer/songwriters is Brandy Clark. As we kick off this Agitator series on Fundraising Metrics I’m going to invoke Brandy because her song Pray to Jesus reflects the approach to decision making by all too many fundraisers unfamiliar with simple metrics, simple calculations. Brandy writes: “Cause there ain’t but two […]

Learn More January 16, 2018

TESTING: When A/B Tests Attack (your results)

In yesterday’s post we talked about when A/B tests show results, but all that’s really there is noise. Today, we’ll flip that on its head: sometimes an A/B test shows no result, but there’s an important finding just below the surface. An example of this is a great study by Karlan and Wood looking at whether […]

Learn More January 4, 2018

For Your 2018 Matching Gift and #GivingTuesday File

Hopefully you’ve survived this year’s final onslaught of matching gift appeals. In an equally hopeful vein perhaps you’ve found some golden nuggets in this week’s posts on matching that will help guide your plans for next year. In the final post for this week’s series Nick puts it all together in a symphony of […]

Learn More December 29, 2017

Digging Into the Matching Gift Weeds

Our fellow traveler Nick Ellinger has probably done more digging into matching gift research than anyone on our team. I thought it would be particularly helpful to share with you one of his earlier posts on structuring a Matching Gift Campaign. I’m hoping this piece from Nick demonstrates that there’s a lot more to constructing […]

Learn More December 28, 2017

Matching Gift Facts and Insights

There’s a growing body of empirical evidence on what makes for effective matching gift programs and what doesn’t. The following post –and the two that will follow this one–contain lots of research AND lots of valuable insight and good questions from Agitator readers. So, if you’re interested in “mastering” this subject you’ll need to spend some […]

Learn More December 27, 2017

Visions of Sugar Plums

As a kid I raptly listened as my parents and grandparents read my brother and me ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas” every year until I went away to college and discovered there may not be a Santa Claus. I did the same thing to my kids. Each year I uttered “Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Dunder Blixem.” […]

Learn More December 21, 2017

The Ghost of Fundraising Yet to Come

Today The Agitator invokes Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol and his Ghosts of Christmases Past, Present and Yet to Come. Actually, I’m most interested in the Ghost of Christmases Yet to Come. As I write, a diligent team is at work behind the scenes crafting new features, special website sections and research to share with you. I’m especially […]

Learn More December 20, 2017

Onboarding: The Fierce Urgency of Listening

The unofficial motto of Seinfeld, according to Larry David, was “No hugging, no learning.” In short, there would be no growth in relationships and characters. (For the young’un’s, Seinfeld was a 90s observational comedy show from that guy who talks to comedians in cars while drinking coffee, the titular Veep, and some other people.) Because we […]

Learn More December 12, 2017

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

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

Q: I find it irritating when some nonprofits accept my “gift” and then ask me to cover their credit card fees separately. It feels like a practice that does nothing to help win donors and runs the risk of turning others off. Is there any data on this either way?

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

Q: What are the three most important things to consider when designing a brilliant supporter journey?

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

Q: Is there any evidence that changes to the tax laws in the USA changed end of year giving behaviors? Previously, ~30% of US taxpayers filed itemized tax returns allowing them to receive a deduction for charitable giving. Tax law changed in 2017 so that now only ~10% itemize. This should mean tax year-end giving should not matter to millions of people for whom it used to matter. Is there any data evidence to support this?

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