Giving Donors a Sense of Choice and Volition
We know many donors would give more if they could direct where their gift went (see, for example, here and here). Yet restricted giving is a giant pain for most fundraisers.
What if you could get most of the advantages of restricted giving without the disadvantages?
Directing a gift fosters a sense of autonomy and being in control, this is a key psychological need to promote high quality motivation, the kind of gift that keeps on giving.
We looked at five conditions. In order of preference:
#1 (tie) restricted giving and restricted giving + where needed most
No surprise here. What surprised us was how close #2 was:
#2: preference in giving:
Note the slight change in copy. Instead of saying your gift will go to X, you are simply saying what your highest priority is. How close were these? On a 100-point scale, restricting your gift was an 80; expressing preference was a 72. Close enough, as they say, for government work.
#3: Allowing someone to choose their channels of communication:
We were surprised this only came in third. Previous DonorVoice research has shown that giving someone control of communications is the most powerful tool you can use for getting people to opt in. For more details on this research, check out this video:
(And you can subscribe to the DonorVoice YouTube channel here for videos like this)
So the fact that donor preferences, even non-binding ones, got a better result than channel control means that they are a powerful tool that can help lift response.
#4: Do nothing. Not surprising that this comes in last place.
But Wait...
I hear you saying, “But wait. People may prefer to give their preference, but does it really make a difference in the real world?”
The American Diabetes Association tested this in acquisition. Their control package had no ability to express a preference and their test version allowed someone to share their highest priority among:
- Finding a cure
- Helping patients and families
- Providing access to care for diabetes
- Supporting medical professionals
This test version had a $3.40 increase in average gift and a 11.6% increase in overall revenue.
Kevin
3 responses to “Giving Donors a Sense of Choice and Volition”
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
Good stuff, Kevin. Thank you for sharing in such detail.
Question: Do we genuinely think the donor can tell the difference between #1 and #2? As you say, it’s a slight change in copy. I am 100% certain that my mother, reading that test #2 copy, would be convinced that her gift was going toward whatever box she checked, because it’s right after “I want to help with a gift of $20.” Perhaps the reason #1 and #2 were so close in results is that from most donors’ perspective they are the same.
Cathe,
Thanks for the thought and question. We did a live test of version #2 against a control and it won. We didn’t do a live test of #1 vs #2. Having said that, the pretest tool results (those reported in the post) are statistically different from one another and in the direction we’d expect – higher preference for greater control. Given that there is theory behind the rationale for both statements and intentional gradation on our part to dial up/down that theory (autonomy and control as behavioral drivers) and results that match our hypothesis I’d say the best assumption is that the differences are real and for the reason we think.