Dear “Donor”: Stop Calling Me What I Don’t Feel Like
Teachers were asked by their school district to complete a survey. The experiment was a 2×2 design (one of our faves): The result? A nothingburger. No difference in survey participation between A-D, randomly assigned groups.
But when researchers looked at an external variable, teacher effectiveness, the picture changed. More effective teachers, who were evenly spread across groups A-D and “hidden” in the averages were much more likely to respond. And they were even more likely in the “identity prime” version, explicitly saying “teacher” in the invite.
Referencing “Teacher” lifted response, but only among the more effective teachers. It’s not enough to be the thing (teacher), it has to matter to you. The teacher Identity was “owned” but only by the better teachers.
That’s the fundraising lesson in one story:
-
Calling me “member,” “conservationist,” or “researcher” only sticks if I see myself that way and,
-
It matters to me
When we prime the right identity for the right person, it resonates. When we broadcast the same prime to everyone, it washes out and looks like “nothing.”
Identity isn’t a magic word; it’s a matching problem. Design to the person, not the average, and the “nothingburgers” start turning into real lift.
Kevin
One response to “Dear “Donor”: Stop Calling Me What I Don’t Feel Like”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
Sooooooo good. Thank you.