Do You Prevent?
I was reading this item from Mintel, a “market intelligence” research firm, about trends that will shape consumer marketing in the future. The article would be of only general background interest to most fundraisers. But I was struck by one observation.
The first trend they discuss is “Prepare for the worst” … as follows:
“With a heightened sense of what economic collapse looks like thanks to the global recession, a renewed emphasis on prevention will drive consumers to think defensively. In the UK, 43% of consumers say “Trying to add to my rainy day savings/emergency fund” is a priority for this year, up 15% from last year. In the US, a third of consumers say they’re using debit rather than credit, and debit transactions are forecasted to rise nearly 60% between 2000 and 2010. Consumers want to know what they’re getting themselves into: no loopholes, no hidden costs and no pricey upgrades. So 2011 may see the need for brands to demonstrate how a product or service delivers long-term benefits or prevents problems down the road.”
I wonder whether this “preventative” or “defensive” thinking by consumers might give a fundraising edge to nonprofits whose work can be presented as avoiding and preventing problems, and dealing with root causes, as opposed to those who appear to be “ambulances at the bottom of the cliff” … picking up the pieces after the worst has already occurred.
Yes, in cases like disaster relief our hearts go out, just as they do when we’re asked to help victims of any number of social ills.
But with people being more “precautionary” in their own lives, doesn’t it make sense that they would react more positively these days to programs and appeals that are posited on prevention versus treatment? In a way, “prevention” has both reason and emotion going for it, while “treatment” seems strictly an emotional thing. And while I usually champion the power of emotion, as a fundraiser I would still prefer to have both the heart and head supporting my appeal.
Does your nonprofit prevent or treat?
Tom
4 responses to “Do You Prevent?”
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
I’ve spent most of my career working in higher education and the arts – rather than traditional ’causes’ and would definitely agree that you can capture the imagination of donors through preventative programmes. The project to improve confidence in non-traditional students that reduced drop out rates among this group and ultimately, increased their employability on graduation and the community arts organisation that gave local kids something creative and motivational to do rather than just hang around the streets causing trouble, both encouraged great support from donors who were inspired to help the organisations prevent a problem before it happened – rather than closing the stable door after the fact.
Excellent! I think this prevention approach is SO important for non-profits in development and relief. AND, often ignored because of the foundational work/labor required. Thanks for keeping us thinking, john
Well put. I really think both preventative and treatment services are necessary. I do find it difficult to articulate results for preventative programs because their outcomes aren’t limited to meals served or beds provided at a shelter.
For example, the charity I work for has an active character training program in several countries. Our historical donors have been familiar with the instant emotional response to (good) treatments such as food, water, clothing, and small relief efforts. These treatment projects are often quicker to provide measurable results to interested donors. But those same donors rarely go beyond the measurement. They’re not asking, “What is below the symptoms of this particular social problem?”
In the spirit of learning how to communicate the need for preventative services, I would appreciate any thoughtful feedback on a latest blog that attempts to make the case for character training at: http://www.missiontochildren.org/2010/11/getting-to-the-heart-of-the-matter/
I work for a teen pregnancy prevention program, and we struggle with how to tell the story of our results in terms of the unintended pregnancies that don’t happen (“happened to my sister but won’t happen to me”) vs the familiar and sad stories of hardship for young families.