Q: Over the last four years, my non-profit has doubled the annual fund by implementing matching gift campaigns, but I am wondering if that can be overdone. Is there such a thing as doing too many 1:1 matching challenges? Should we stick to just one? Are two permissible? Or do donors forget all about the campaign immediately after the thank you and results emails are sent out?
It’s not that two matching offers aren’t permissible. It’s just that they are trickier than they sound. There’s an increasing number of studies with evidence pointing to their limited, or sometimes, negative impact:
– Matching offers increase donations only in some geographical areas (Karlan & List, 2007)
– Response to matching offers differs across regular donors compared to other donor types (McCarty, Diette, & Holloway, 2018)
– Lapsed donors could be negatively affected by a match offer (Karlan, List & Shafir, 2010)
– Matching offers do increase revenue in the short-term but they seem to do that in the expense of long-term income. In other words, these offers cannibalize the money the charity would get later on from non-matching offers. When there are repeated asks, match offers can result in a negative long run effect (Meier, 2007).
– Once you remove the matching gift offer, people’s contributions stop (Meier, 2010). It seems that matching offers undermine people’s willingness to contribute.
The last two points especially should caution you against using multiple matching offers and even make you question whether you should have one at all.
Instead, you could use the match money to announce you received a lead gift. Lead gift offers produce a better response than matching offers. In their study Rondeau & List (2008) compared a matching gift offer to a lead gift announcement. The lead gift raised 31% more money than the matching offer. That’s just one of the many studies showing an advantage of lead gifts over matching offers with the added bonus that long-term revenue wasn’t affected.
When the time comes for your match offer, you could test a lead gift offer head to head and examine both short and long-term revenue. If you decide to test this, please do share the results.
You can read more about all this and find links to the studies in our previous blog posts:
http://agitator.thedonorvoice.com/a-soggy-box-of-matches/
http://agitator.thedonorvoice.com/research-update-making-your-match-less-bad/
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