Death to Channels. Long Live Channels
Defining donors by channel is a bit like defining me by whether Amazon, USPS, UPS or Fed-Ex delivers my packages. It’s accurate and objective but I rarely make that choice and it’s inconsequential to why I bought what I bought.
The channel I give in is often a function of exposure and where I happened to see and act on the ask. And of course, the channel of transaction is always given way too much credit for the gift.
And lastly, saying people who give in multiple channels are better donors is akin to saying people who give us more are worth more. It’s tautological, not insightful.
Death to Channels.
But wait, channels are a useful proxy for what matters in the game of reach and frequency.
If Reach is King, Frequency is the Court Jester. It’s believing in the bettor’s fallacy, that good outcomes are just around the corner if we just keep sending more. Email results in 2022 vs. 2021 show the sector send more emails to fewer people and raised less money.
But hey, if you don’t ask, they can’t give, right?
Reach is breadth, the number of people exposed once to your campaign. Frequency is repetition and it has massive diminishing returns, very quickly reached and turning negative, more = less.
But, you can’t run a campaign without some repetition, the same person being exposed more than once. How to minimize frequency and tuning out? I
Reach is King, Modality is Queen. I use modality here to refer to different presentations of the same pitch – oral vs. visual vs. written, long vs. short, etc.
It turns out that I can greatly reduce the downside of irritation from over-exposure by mixing up modality. My brain doesn’t process it as redundant, it processes as novel and different. And channels tend to have innately different modalities – e.g., SMS, Facebook ad, email, direct mail.
Long live channels.
But the law of diminishing returns is undefeated and there is Goldilocks modality/channel mix of 3-4.
Five or higher causes not just diminishing but negative returns. More = less, again.
Kevin
3 responses to “Death to Channels. Long Live Channels”
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
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
“different presentations of the same pitch – oral vs. visual vs. written, long vs. short, etc.”
Not only is this the way to use repetition to get people to act, without boring them. It is also a terrific way to produce more content without having to start from a blank sheet of paper or a blank screen all the time.
Dennis, yep, exactly, good point.