Crossing The (On)Line?
Last week I received a succession of email appeals from a nonprofit that shall remain nameless.
On Tuesday July 10 I was told that the campaign in question had been extended for another week, and my gift would be matched 2:1 if I donated by that Friday, the 13th. A bar graph indicated $43,643 had been raised so far.
On Wednesday July 11 I received a follow-up appeal for this campaign, again telling me my gift would be matched 2:1 if made by Friday. Now the graph indicated $46,006 had been raised.
Finally, on Friday July 13 I received another follow-up, this time indicating the campaign had raised $52,671 (53% of the goal) and that my gift would be matched 3:1 if made by midnight.
Should we smile at the thought of all those dumb suckers who had settled for the mere 2:1 match?
Online fundraising makes this kind of game possible. Because the online fundraiser’s perception is that it costs virtually nil to make these three successive appeals (actually four or more appeals … regrettably I deleted the previous week’s). At least four appeals to raise $53k. I’m sure each appeal was ‘justified’ on the basis that it produced net income.
But is this any way to treat your donors?
Tom
4 responses to “Crossing The (On)Line?”
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
As a donor I would find this tactic irritating. There is a point well a charity can be perceived as greedy. As I do, most donors spread their money around to several causes and this feels a bid like harassment. As a fundraiser I feel ‘just because you can – doesn’t mean you should’!
They’re killing the legitimacy of a very tried and true strategy – the matching gift. The Chronicle wrote about this (rather sloppily I might add) as you know and tactics like this only reinforce their argument.
We run a mail campaign similar to this each year. I look at it as a challenge. So is the issue the format or number of asks …. does the idea of challenging donors to meet a specific need at a specific time ruffle the feathers?
I saw this post from Seth Godin today and it made me think of your post, which I read yesterday.
http://www.thedominoproject.com/2012/07/voting-for-a-winner.html
Bottom line is that people want to back winners not losers, and I think part of what was so annoying about the campaign that you mentioned was the minimal progress with the continuous begging. Wondering if they had shown bigger progress day to day and if they were closer to ultimate goal (rather than just half way there) if it would have made any difference to you in how it felt?