Emotion vs. Logic. And The Winner Is …
Over the years in The Agitator, in post after post after post we’ve emphasized the paramount importance emotion in fundraising.
As Tom succinctly put it:
“Methinks the entire quest for rationalization is really fueled by our emotional need — in the case of having donated — for our benevolence to not have been wasted, violated, foolish or abused in some fashion. As donors we want our benevolence affirmed. We want to feel good.”
And so I commend to you a splendid piece exploring emotion vs. logic by our friend Ken Burnett. For those just beginning to wrestle with the balance between emotion and logic, Ken’s “Straight to the heart of how fundraising works” is a ‘must read’ primer. For the rest of us it’s a ‘must read’ refresher course.
A word of introduction before you sample this feast.
In 2007 The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation launched its Nonprofit Marketplace Initiative, an 8-year, $12 million investment in organizations like Guidestar, with the goal of increasing giving by providing rational, factual information to nonprofit donors.
The experiment came to a pre-mature end this month when Hewlett pulled the plug, commendably admitting that it would fail to meet its “objective of influencing 10% of individual donors to be more evidence-based in their giving.”
The Hewlett Foundation deserves our gratitude for empirically and financially tackling the issue of logic/fact vs. emotion in giving.
And Ken Burnett, as is so often the case, also deserves our gratitude for putting the this experiment in perspective:
“What’s odd is that giving a donation to a cause could ever have been perceived as logical. Unless perhaps when it’s given to ingratiate, or enhance reputation. Otherwise, logically, a donation makes no sense.”
You’re in for a treat as Ken shares moving examples of the effective use of emotion … implores fundraisers to use more of it … and rhetorically admonishes that isn’t “it time some people collectively and finally got over their discomfort and distaste with the emotions that drive responses to all our causes?”
Of course, as Ken notes, there is a place for logic, and an important one. But it should be presented clearly and very concisely so it’s unarguable and so the donors can “get on with reveling in the warm, emotional reasons that fundraisers give them, that show them why they should care so much that they’ll gladly give generously, willingly and for a very long time.”
“Logic moves people to applaud. Emotion moves people to tears, anger and action.“
Ken, you’ve moved Tom and me to granting you yet another Agitator raise.
Roger
P.S. Among the great examples in Ken’s piece is a moving video from a Thai insurance company on what it means to be a donor. If Unsung Hero doesn’t move you to redouble your efforts then better look for another line of work.
8 responses to “Emotion vs. Logic. And The Winner Is …”
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
Logic v. Emotion evokes the persistent tension between Branding v. Fundraising. That’s a battle I’ve fought with many a client.
One of my mentors, Harry Lynch of Sanky Communications, always said, “Evoke it. Don’t tell it.” I think of him when I advocate for emotion, warmth and a conversational tone in copy. Instead I all too often hear, “But that’s not our brand. That’s not who we are.”
Fingernails on a blackboard, I tell you!
I wonder if any ED or MGO has “brand” at the top of their minds when they’re in conversation with a major donor. Even with these high-value supporters, emotion comes into play and the face-to-face engagement that an organization has taps into that.
For direct response donors, mail and email appeals are those conversations Stripping them of their heart and soul in the name of brand, logic, etc. does a disservice to the organization — and the donor.
Bravo Roger! Pass the tissue please . . .
We do this work for emotional reasons, so it makes sense that people would give for emotional reasons. If we do this for logical reasons, then we are in the wrong line of work or the wrong sector.
Ken again and again and again and again is right, he’s right, he’s right, he’s right. I just bushwhacked through Dan Hill’s EMOTIONOMICS and strongly recommend it. It’s the argument ender. Dan has all the relevant neuroscience neatly arrayed and does a lovely job of explaining why brain evolution puts us where we are today. People who still champion reason over emotions are in the same category as climate deniers and creationists. Don’t let these people anywhere near your donor communications program.
Roger,
After nearly 40 years in this profession/field, I really find myself annoyed when anyone tries to redefine the fundraising process to a more logical or, somehow, strictly intellectual equation that is devoid of human emotion. When it happens, I think that somebody is trying to tell me that everything I’ve experienced in this business all these years is just a weird dream fantasy.
As one of the very first professional advancement/fundraising officers to work at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, I can tell you, without doubt or hesitation, that we did not need to hand current or prospective donors boxes of tissues after taking them on tours of the Jimmy Fund Clinic in those days. It was not spells of logical or intellectual exercise that moved them in that space! I’m sure it’s the same today.
Kim Silva said it well (above). We in the profession are functioning on an emotional level, and the people responding to us are on that same level, otherwise there likely would be no response at all!
Roger,
The power of emotion and memory are the true heart of many of the donors that I have had the privilege of working with in their quest to make a difference in this world.
Great post Roger!!
The flip side of the coin is equally crucial, but sadly ignored: logic is not only (far) less effective, it can be destructive in a titanic way. In The Upside of Irrationality — and if you’re in the persuasion business and you don’t know the work of Dan Ariely, you should have his books delivered to your home today for weekend reading — Ariely found that turning on rational thought blocks empathy, significantly. His famous “Rokia” experiment, which also focuses on the identifiable victim effect, showed that the rational group gave 21% LESS than the empathetic group. The lesson here is: keep big hairy statistics out of it (3 million starving children), and instead tell the emotional story of One. In other words, less Mr. Spock, more Captain Kirk — I just presented on this at the Irish Fundraising Conference. Emotion rules the roost (or the helm, to continue our metaphor).
With apologies for my sloppiness, I just noticed an error in my May 1 post on this thread (above).
In the second paragraph, my words were poorly constructed and gave the impression that our Dana-Farber Cancer Institute “did not need to hand current or prospective donors boxes of tissues after taking them on tours of the Jimmy Fund Clinic in those days.” (late 1970s).
Actually, I was trying to convey just the opposite. We typically had lots of tissues handy for all visitors while they spent time with the clinic’s children affected by cancer, especially then-deadly, now-curable leukemias. There was heavy use of tissues! Thus the assertion that it was emotional response we received from those visitors and not a reasoned, logical one.
To the excellent point just made by Lisa Sargent, those visits to the Jimmy Fund Clinic illustrated the point of Ariely’s Rokia experiment, in my view. While those visitors usually saw small groups of children at a time, it was always one or two particular children that impressed each individual visitor and left a strong, emotional mark on them. Again, I’m confident that’s still the same today.