Testing - Agitator | DonorVoice

Breaking Out of the Status Quo

RESEARCH UPDATE: An Online Test of Donor Preferences

A couple weeks ago, we reported how donors preferred to make their preferences known. We even featured a test from the American Diabetes Association that found that asking a donor’s priority mission area increases revenue by 11.6%. While evangelizing donor preference, I got the question “what about online?” After all, we are taught online to […]

Learn More September 5, 2018

TEST RESULTS: You Raise More Money When You Listen to Donors’ Preferences

We know that, given the options, many donors would give more if they could direct where their gift went (see, for example, here and here). Yet restricted giving is a giant pain for most fundraisers. You could end up in your finance department explaining yourself for the rest of your natural life (and some of […]

Learn More August 23, 2018

TEST RESULTS: External Validators Are Vitally Important–Except When They Aren’t

We’re looking at external validators – seals and such – in our week-long series on how to frame overhead and impact. These validators were the second most important factors to get right, lagging only how overhead is presented (which we covered yesterday) In the DonorVoice study with the DMA Nonprofit Federation, we looked at five […]

Learn More August 22, 2018

TEST RESULTS: Donors Don’t Care How You Spend Your Money. They Care How You Spend Theirs.

It sounds like a semantic difference – after all, if donors are donors, then their money becomes your money. But it makes all the difference in the world. We know that (unfortunately) donors have an aversion to overhead. Take a study from Gneezy et al. They allowed participants to give $100 to either charity: water […]

Learn More August 21, 2018

TEST RESULTS: Donors Care About Their Impact, Not Your Overhead

A significant factor in the donor’s decision to give rests in how s/he answers the question, “how am I going to feel if I make this gift?” So, the job of the fundraiser is to determine how those factors under an organization’s control can be most effectively presented. One major set of issues involve those […]

Learn More August 20, 2018

The Reality Distortion Field: Focusing on the One

There is a famous study in nonprofit marketing showing that an appeal that tells the story of a child does better than an appeal that tells that same story with information about the general problem of poverty in Africa. Even more oddly, a story of one boy did as well as the story of one […]

Learn More July 27, 2018

Finding the Pony in the Charity Commission Report

Didja hear the one about the two kids: one an extreme pessimist, the other an extreme optimist? The parents took the pessimist to a room full of brand-new toys, and the optimist out to a manure pile. When they checked in on the pessimist, he was crying. He wouldn’t play with any of the […]

Learn More July 17, 2018

Agitator Cliff Notes: “The Why Axis”

Next up is The Why Axis, by Uri Gneezy and John List, two of the community of economists who work on charitable giving. Roger had already covered one item I had noted back in 2013: that 1:1 matches work just as well as 2:1 or 3:1 matches. And I talked about how people give more […]

Learn More May 23, 2018

What to Do When Cost-to-Acquire Lies to You

I’ve argued cost-to-acquire (CTA) and lifetime value were the two metrics that mattered most. The idea is that if lifetime value is going to be higher than the cost of acquiring, acquire that donor. If not, you need lower acquisition costs or higher lifetime value. That makes great sense as far as it goes. The […]

Learn More May 2, 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

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

Breaking Out of the Status Quo

RESEARCH UPDATE: An Online Test of Donor Preferences

TEST RESULTS: You Raise More Money When You Listen to Donors’ Preferences

TEST RESULTS: External Validators Are Vitally Important–Except When They Aren’t

TEST RESULTS: Donors Don’t Care How You Spend Your Money. They Care How You Spend Theirs.

TEST RESULTS: Donors Care About Their Impact, Not Your Overhead

The Reality Distortion Field: Focusing on the One

Finding the Pony in the Charity Commission Report

Agitator Cliff Notes: “The Why Axis”

What to Do When Cost-to-Acquire Lies to You

What Ask String Works Best?

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

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?

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?

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?

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?

DonorVoice products

Commitment System

Donor Feedback Platform™

PreTest Tool

TouchPoint Mapping