Paper vs Digital –Does the Medium Matter?
Does an ask for money or time get mentally processed differently depending on whether it’s a paper or digital ask?
In a word, yes. A study done in China and the US found that the medium determines, in part, how willing folks are to help. They dubbed the finding the “good paper” effect, which likely gives away the ending.
Controlling for everything else, good old-fashioned, expensive, time-consuming paper from a tree increases willingness to give. “Why” is what really matters.
People don’t give to help, at least not directly. They give to reinforce their personal goals and values. Paper is seen as more real and the extra realness makes the act more consequential and more reinforcing of our self-image.
In other words, paper does a better job of reinforcing one’s Identity than it’s digital equivalent.
What to do with this finding? A couple macro suggestions,
- Don’t replicate what you do in email in mail
- Do replicate what you do in the mail with email
Thanks Captain Obvious, you say… but wait, there’s more.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the proliferation of emails and its almost concomitant hokeyness of faux countdown timers, matching whatchamacallits, gimmicky, cutesy subject lines is undermining credibility and seriousness?
Direct mail has its own sins from selling names to undermining intrinsic motivation with premiums and tchotchkes galore. But, everything is relative, apparently including, realness.
Kevin
9 responses to “Paper vs Digital –Does the Medium Matter?”
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 think anecdotally there is a ton of evidence to support this. I believe that many people prefer to transact online but in the majority of cases the primary motivation to that transaction is from a printed communication. We see this in the catalog world in a major way. But regardless of the transaction the most important thing is to build trust, authenticity, and a deep connection between the charity and the constituent. This is undeniably best accomplished with a variety of online and offline communications – print or otherwise.
Dear Captain Obvious … right on!
During the pandemic, we [The Case Writers] helped 2 different organizations build PAPER donor newsletters; both are now well written in-house. One PAPER newsletter is mailed to about 20k supporters and makes around $70k in gifts per issue. The other PAPER newsletter is mailed to 100+k supporters and makes at least $400+k per issue. Why? Because … and here I’ll quote an expert … “[Individuals] give to reinforce their personal goals and values. Paper is seen as more real and the extra realness makes the act more consequential and more reinforcing of our self-image.” That … and a steady focus on being emotionally relevant to the donors … which may be saying the same thing, just in different words.
Very interesting and certainly reinforces what I have thought instinctively. Could you give a citation for the study? I am concerned that if a study like this were controlled for age, we might find younger people have a different view of the ‘realness’ of virtual communication.
Thanks!
Hi Kim…
The post is based on a study published by the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/paper-vs-digital-requests
Roger
I’m going to be a bit provocative here, but is it possible that this is explained by a. more orgs. being bad at digital than are bad at direct mail? and b. under resourced orgs. trying to treat these donors the same by sending the same types of communications to both rather than sending what works best for that donor segment? While our direct mail program is generally performing within the high end of normal benchmarks, our digital program has grown explosively and performs above industry benchmarks on most metrics. It’s now our 2nd largest stream outside legacy, is the source of 85% of new donors, is our 2nd highest source of monthly donors (after our phone monthly conversion program), online donors are converting to monthly, and have a higher average gift than direct mail. On the reverse, direct mail still slightly outperforms DM for retention and to date we still see more legacy donors coming from there (likely more to do with average age than anything inherent to the channel) or monthly than we do digital. We don’t replicate what we do in email in mail but nor do we replicate what we do in mail in email BECAUSE they are different experiences, both have their strengths and audiences. I’d be very interested in seeing the citation for this study and understanding their parameters a little more. But, I’d also suggest that to build a truly resilient fundraising program one invests in both areas.
No surprise, but nice to see a cross-cultural research study and thanks Roger for the link.
In other words, paper does a better job of reinforcing one’s Identity than it’s digital equivalent.
I want to know what are your thoughts about this changing generationally? Does paper better reinforce younger folks identity that digitial even though they grew up in the digitial age. As they grow up do we see them leaning more towards paper? Just wondering how long this will be the case 20+ years down the road.
Hi Lisa,
That wasn’t addressed in this paper so my guess is that the realness gap still holds with paper beating digital but perhaps the gap is smaller among younger folks.
Yes! Paper is “more real” because it’s, well, real. It sits on your kitchen counter while you think about it. You hold it in you hand and wonder if you’ll donate. You procrastinate and think some more. While you’re thinking, touching, holding your paper communication, that other digital newsletter has vanished into internet oblivion never to he thought about again.