Q: Our mid-level donor team removed the QR code from the DM donation form that links to the donation page, but have left the URL for them to type it in manually. Not sure why they are adding a barrier to the donation process for a higher value donor – but I have to ask – is there any proof – either way – if a QR donation code reduces MV online giving, has any effect on their donation amount, has any effect on off line donations? Thank you….
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and gift size.
Here’s what the data and behavioral science tell us:
- Friction is a conversion killer.
- Every additional step or effort required (like typing a URL manually) is a barrier and increases abandonment rates. Even small usability barriers can reduce response rates by 10–30%.
- QR codes minimize that friction, allowing donors—especially those reading on mobile—to move directly from motivation to action in one effortless step.
- Ease signals competence and professionalism.
- Research in donor psychology shows that smooth, modern, low-effort giving experiences increase trust and perceived organizational competence, both key drivers of giving, particularly among MV donors who expect a more seamless experience.
- The “effort justification” argument doesn’t apply here.
- While it’s true that high-effort actions can sometimes increase post-decision satisfaction, that’s only when effort is meaningful (e.g., storytelling or reflection). Requiring someone to manually type a URL is unproductive effort. It adds friction without deepening emotional engagement.
- No known data supports removing QR codes for MV audiences.
- Industry A/B testing (e.g., DonorVoice, NextAfter, and Network for Good) finds no negative effect of including QR codes in mid-value or major donor segments. Instead, they’re typically ignored by those who prefer checks and used by those inclined to give digitally, creating a net positive.
- One DonorVoice campaign saw an 11% lift in response and a 37% increase in revenue when appeals made online giving easier.
- MV donors still value choice.
- Higher-value donors often prefer autonomy: offering both a URL and a QR code respects that. They can choose how to give, reinforcing autonomy and competence—two key drivers of sustained giving under Self-Determination Theory.
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer