Follow The Man In The Suit
I saw this headline — 9 Valuable Shortcuts to Influence Nonprofit Donors — on a recent Claire Axelrad article and set off to read it in a huff. “Claire, you know better than that,” I thought as I waited for the download. “You know donor relationships must be built over time, as trust and commitment develops. There are no ‘shortcuts’. Shame on you!”
But of course I had made a rash judgement … and as a frequent reader of Claire’s advice, I should have known better. Sorry Claire!
What Claire — a fellow traveler in the lore of neuromarketing — wrote about was some of the time-tested principles of persuasion.
Here are the nine ‘shortcuts’ she recommends (read her post for the details):
- Reciprocity — people return a favour … that’s why free labels work.
- Liking — the root of peer-to-peer success.
- Scarcity — don’t wait!
- Authority — I loved her example here. She talks of a video where man in suit jaywalks, others follow. Same man in sweatshirt, no one follows. Cool. [Ever wonder where the term ‘jaywalking’ comes from? Answer]
- Social Proof — people do what other people do (especially if they wear suits!).
- Commitment/Consistency — start them with something easy (a pledge, a petition), and many will then follow through.
- Facial Cues — face it, we’re all hard-wired (we wrote on this here).
- Mirroring — the secret behind video.
- Memories — tapping the emotion that’s already there.
Well done Claire. Proven tools of persuasion … getting the first movement in your direction.
Then the hard work of relationship building begins.
Tom
7 responses to “Follow The Man In The Suit”
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
So glad I didn’t cause you to stay huffy all day!
You are right about relationships taking time to build and deepen, of course. But the word “short cut” gets a bad rep. If you deploy them strategically to make the best use of limited resources — using psychology and neuromarketing principles to cut through the clutter — you can grab folks’ attention and persuade them to act where they otherwise might not have noticed and/or listened to you.
As I said in my article, Influencing people to do something positive they already are predisposed to do—something that matches their values and makes them feel good—is a fine thing.
I love your blog too. It’s one of my favorite reads. 🙂
Bravo to Claire for such keen insights and bravo to Tom for sharing!
Perhaps several of them will spark departure from the everyday norm…
Great ideas from Claire. One question. Yes free labels work, but is reciprocity at work or guilt? If guilt, are we being donor-centric?
We are in trouble in Music City, as very few of us wear suits. Perhaps, we are prone to follow those who wear boots.
Thanks Claire for great & simple truth!
Claire,
In regards to Scott’s mentioning of labels, do you find that first time donors who respond to a premium, are not inclined to give again unless there’s another freebie?
That’s certainly what the research has shown about giveaways– that renewals are harder to come by and rarely come without another incentive. It’s a different psychology — to give because you buy something or get a tangible reward as opposed to giving to make a difference.
Although it can be harder to renew premium-acquired donors initially we have found that the long-term value is actually better, even without the use of premiums in the future.
You can see the numbers in our case study here: http://harveymckinnon.com/portfolio/data-analytics-improve-acquisition-success