Q: As a designer who works with non-profits on fundraising strategy, I see the language like the following: “Our supporters help empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs.” I do not think the word “help” is useful–I think “Our supporters empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs. ” is much more engaging. Thoughts?
Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might resonate better with certain audiences.
Your revision makes the donor’s role more direct and active, which can be effective—especially when we want to emphasize personal impact. That said, some organizations may prefer help to acknowledge the broader efforts at play (e.g., program staff, local partners, the girls themselves).
If you’re testing different phrasings, a good approach is to consider the audience and goal:
- If you want to reinforce a sense of agency and direct impact, your version (supporters empower…) might be stronger. This approach might be more suitable for mid-level and major donors.
- If the goal is to emphasize collective effort and partnership, help may work better.
Testing both versions with real audiences could provide great insights into what resonates most!
Behavioral Science Q & A
Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]
Read Full Answer
Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]
Read Full Answer
The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]
Read Full Answer
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