Uncategorized - Agitator

Communications

Evolving Our Nonprofit Language

When something new comes along, it goes through fuzzy stages of naming: We don’t know what to call it. Early names for our wired digital experience were “information superhighway” (peaked in 1996, according to Google nGram) and “cyberspace” (peaked in 2000). Early references to the car/automobile included autokenetic, autometon, buggyaut, motorig, and truckle. We define […]

Learn More October 23, 2019

Here’s To The Crazy Ones

The Asch conformity experiment is famous enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Students were asked which of three lines matched a fourth line in length. Super simple – less than one percent error rate. Until you put the student with a group of fellow students (actually actors) all saying the wrong answer. Then, 75% […]

Learn More October 21, 2019

Online Symposium Part 3: What did we learn about empathy?

Remember the last time you were with a loved one who was feeling sad or hopeless? Most likely, you also felt a bit sad, in other words, you empathized with them. But did you know there are two different forms of empathy? Emotional (affective) empathy is all about sharing another person’s feelings and building an […]

Learn More October 18, 2019

Online Symposium Part 2: What We Learned About Actual Impact

There are two types of impact information a charity could share: Actual impact is the difference a donation, or the charity, had on the cause and can be shown with data from the field. Perceived impact is the difference supporters perceive their donation, or the charity, could have e.g. $15 could buy medicine. In my previous post on […]

Learn More October 16, 2019

Online Symposium Part 1: What We Learned About Perceived Impact

It’s not a big scientific discovery that supporters care about the difference they make. If my donation won’t change anything, why would I give? At the same time though, very few supporters check a charity’s actual impact before making a donation. So, what’s going on here? Two things: 1. The type of impact Actual impact is […]

Learn More October 14, 2019

The Power of Celebrity (or lack thereof)

in our board meeting bingo run-through of the things you don’t want to hear your board say, I forgot “let’s reach out to X celebrity to see if they will market for us.” (Extra bonus points if X is Oprah.) It comes up frequently. And it’s painful to have to say “yes, it would be great […]

Learn More October 11, 2019

“Smug” Is A Four-Letter Word

We talk about falling retention rates when the reports from the Blackbaud Institute Index or the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP) is released each quarter. We don’t talk about how many poor fundraising practices contributed to that decline. We talk about the declining overall number of donors, not how fundraising malpractice contributed to the failure to […]

Learn More October 9, 2019

Testing Goes To Pot

Last year, the Journal of the American Medical Association for Internal Medicine published a blockbuster finding – April 20th has a 12% elevated fatal crash risk, which is statistically significant. This doesn’t sound like a blockbuster finding until you factor in that April 20 is also a very unofficial holiday for using marijuana. The authors […]

Learn More October 7, 2019

Head-in-the-Sand Is Not a Donor-Centric Strategy

A year ago I wrote: “ I don’t know exactly when it will happen. In the not-too-distant future your organization will receive a letter from a donor that goes something like this: Dear ABC Organization, I’m growing increasingly concerned over the widespread use and abuse of my private and personal information by organizations like Facebook, Google […]

Learn More October 4, 2019

Shelter from the Privacy Storm

On Monday, Roger talked about the looming storm clouds of California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA.) This new act likely to portend a cluster… munition… for a few reasons: Even before the CCPA takes effect on January 1, 2020, there’s already a push to hold a new California referendum calling for even greater regulation. This on […]

Learn More October 2, 2019

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

Communications

Evolving Our Nonprofit Language

Here’s To The Crazy Ones

Online Symposium Part 3: What did we learn about empathy?

Online Symposium Part 2: What We Learned About Actual Impact

Online Symposium Part 1: What We Learned About Perceived Impact

The Power of Celebrity (or lack thereof)

“Smug” Is A Four-Letter Word

Testing Goes To Pot

Head-in-the-Sand Is Not a Donor-Centric Strategy

Shelter from the Privacy Storm

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?

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?

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?

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

DonorVoice products

Commitment System

Donor Feedback Platform™

PreTest Tool

TouchPoint Mapping