Q: I came across a very interesting appeal from UNICEF: “Make one gift to save a child’s life…and we’ll never ask for another gift again.” Great way to get an envelope opened. However, upon taking a closer look at the package I discovered that the donor had to check a very small box”( ) This will be my only gift. Please do not ask me for another donation again.” in order to opt out. How did this appeal work? How many people opted out?
It sounds like UNICEF executed, in a cheeky way, what SmileTrain did in a very transparent way.
In 2015, just like UNICEF, SmileTrain sent out a pack with the promise of not asking for another gift again if you gave this once. Same concept and OE/letter message. But, unlike UNICEF, SmileTrain explicitly asked those who made a gift to choose from the following options:
- do not mail me in the future asking for donations
- send me only a limited number of future mailings
- continue to mail me
People had to select one of the three options and the ask was visible, not hidden. This “once and done” mailing doubled donations with just 38% of donors asking to never be emailed again. So a win-win situation.
There are different hypotheses why this appeal works:
1. it removes any social pressure people feel from repeated charitable asks. Those who are averse to repeated asks from the same org find this solicitation appealing as it gives them an option to opt-out from future intrusions.
2. The “once and done” message yields the control to the supporter which signals the charity’s trust or generosity which is then reciprocated by the supporter
3. As you mentioned, it’s an unusual and unexpected message that triggers our curiosity and increases engagement. If more people open the letter, more people might give.
You can read the whole study here
I haven’t seen UNICEF’s execution but from what you say they only asked people to opt-out and made that ask very hard to find (the cheeky bit in their execution). We know that even when the opt-out ask is visible a low number of people tick the box, much less when it’s in small font. I don’t have access to UNICEF’s data to know how many opted-out but based on their execution, I suspect an even lower % than the SmileTrain.
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