Didn’t You Hear Me? No “Thank You”!
Few posts over the years have provoked as much outrage and discussion as Tom’s No “Thank You”!
Hopefully, you’re now back at your desk, treating as your highest priority the privilege of thanking your year-end donors. If so, you’ll want to read this — especially the Comments.
Then go ahead, this is your chance set Tom straight once and for all … I’m sure he’ll thank you.
Roger
3 responses to “Didn’t You Hear Me? No “Thank You”!”
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
Whether it makes a difference or not, being grateful and saying thanks is the right thing to do. Do we measure the “right thing to do” , or as Nike says, “Just do it!”
I think the idea of not saying thank you is ludicrous. Someone just did something thoughtful for you, and it was something he had absolutely no obligation to do. “Thank you”, measurable or not, is just the right and the polite thing to do. In a commercial world where we somehow have accepted “have a nice day” or “you’re all set” as appropriate substitutes for “thank you” (which they aren’t), can’t we as fundraisers do a little better?
The Agitator should be above peddling drivel. It is relied on as an oasis of common sense.
Your own book, ‘ Retention Fundraising ‘, totally driven by facts and results, identifies ‘ Receives timely thank-yous ‘ as no.3 key driver that most influences donors. It goes on to give many examples, tests, and evidence.
I hope Tom acknowledges his mistake. And that not too many avid Agitator fans have been swerved off course by his original piece.