Q: Is there any evidence that referring to donors as “members” versus “friends” or even just “donors” makes a difference? I’m not talking about benefits or voting rights, just the word itself. Does it feel unnecessarily exclusive, when everyone else is focusing on inclusivity?
Before we look at the differences between “donor” and “member”, let’s take a step back.
There’s evidence that using nouns e.g. “helper” instead of verbs e.g. “help” leads to an increase of the behaviour described by the noun, in this case helping behaviour. The theory behind this is that nouns signal a fixed identity or quality while verbs signal an action which might be transient. In other words, any one might help or not depending on the circumstances, but if you consider yourself to be a “helper” then you’ll help in most situations. The same logic applies to other nouns that can be used as labels e.g. donor, supporter, member etc… Their use might make people internalize these identities which could then lead to consistent behaviour.
Now, which label is most effective? The answer might differ based on the audience and the target behaviour. That’s why I always recommend testing this concept with your specific audience and with a variety of labels to find the most effective.
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