Cause Connection: A Simple, Underused Donor Identity
The last two days have covered two examples of health charities that have increased their revenues by differentiating based on cause connection. That is, they looked differently at those who either had the disease they are working to abate or had been treated by their facility and those who didn’t have this type of cause connection.
Two important points here.
First, while disease and health charities provide great examples of this, because these aspects are so tied up in donors’ identities, this doesn’t apply to just this sector. Someone who has been to a museum is going to be a largely different donor to that museum than one who hasn’t. Someone who has experienced hunger is going to donate differently to an anti-hunger charity than those who haven’t. And so on.
Second, these are not lone cases. Here are two more examples from the health sector of how cause connection makes a huge difference in how people respond to a charity.
Charity 1 asked its donors if they were the parent or grandparent of, or in another way knew someone who was, a recipient of direct services. The results?
| Connection | No connection | |
| Commitment score | 7.3 | 6.3 |
| Number of giving channels | 1.7 | 1.4 |
| Volunteered on this issue | 58% | 28% |
| Participated in the charity’s events | 23% | 10% |
| Liked them on Facebook | 24% | 14% |
| Purchased anything from their gift catalog | 56% | 29% |
By every measure, a donor with a connection to the organization is a better donor than one who isn’t. Likewise, every channel this organization employed will be disproportionately populated by those with a connection to the organization.
Charity 2 looked at donors who self-identified with a disease versus those without.
| With the disease | Without the disease | |
| Commitment score | 7.4 | 7.0 |
| Months since last gift | 10 | 11 |
| % high commitment | 49% | 38% |
| Volunteered for the nonprofit | 39% | 24% |
| Liked them on Facebook | 50% | 31% |
| Joined them online | 31% | 10% |
So, good news. With this type of differentiation, you can acquire more valuable donors. And you can retain these donors better by catering to their needs.
Nick
Behavioral Science Q & A
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
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
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
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
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
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