How Donors Choose Among Nonprofits: The Role of Identity: Part 2
This week, we’re looking back at previous posts and updating them with the state of the art.
First up is a University of Kent study I reviewed a couple months ago. It found, in a nutshell, that donors tend to support charities that mean something to them personally.
But that was just talking to people. Maybe people do something different in real life. And maybe information like effectiveness measures would change their preferences.
Berman, Barasch, Levine, et al just studied whether this is true in an April Psychological Science article. From the first lines of the abstract, you can tell they really want us to all be Spock, logically assessing every possible way our gifts could be used and picking the platonic ideal:
“Charity could do the most good if every dollar donated went to causes that produced the greatest welfare gains. In line with this proposition, the effective-altruism movement seeks to provide individuals with information regarding the effectiveness of charities in hopes that they will contribute to organizations that maximize the social return of their donation.”
Meanwhile, back on Earth, we humble practitioners can see where this is going. We know that our gifts are a personal decision, based in who we are and what we believe.
The first test went well for Team Effective Altruism. When donors were given charities in the same area, they picked those that were more effective. Simple as pie.
But then they gave donors choices that included a variety of causes. Cue the chaos. Said one of the researchers in an interview:
“[I]f you give them a choice set that consists of a variety of causes, and you provide that same information on effectiveness and make it really easy for them to understand that information, those are the cases in which people ignore the effectiveness information. The reason is because they care about it, but not enough to sacrifice their own personal preferences when choosing a cause to support.”
That’s right. Donors picked the causes they care about, whether the charities were effective or not.
Or, returning to that University of Kent study:
“[P]eople do not give to the most urgent needs, but rather they support causes that mean something to them. In particular, the study finds four non‑needs‑based criteria that commonly influence donors’ decision‑making: Donors’ tastes, preferences and passions, acquired as a result of an individual’s social experiences. These motivate many giving decisions, even among donors who perceive themselves to be motivated by meeting needs. Donors’ personal and professional backgrounds, which shape their ‘philanthropic autobiographies’ and influence their choice of beneficiaries. …”
Now, think about the time and space you spend talking about your effectiveness. Even if you were to just replace the pie chart that shows what percent of your funds go to program expenses, what could you put there?
00You could put a survey to ask about your donors’ identities so you were matching your pitch to them.
You could play back to your donor why they support you if you already know that.
You could give them an identity (e.g., member, patron, lifesaver) and imbue it with positive characteristics.
Even a mirror would improve on effectiveness data. After all, the data show that donors give as a reflection of themselves.
Nick
6 responses to “How Donors Choose Among Nonprofits: The Role of Identity: Part 2”
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
Ah Peter Singer and effective altruism. UGH! Not the way the brain works. Not the way feelings work. I give through Planned Parenthood to fulfill my own aspirations of social justice and women’s rights. I give through Planned Parenthood because that giving is about me…. My self identity (kick-ass agent of change fighting for equity not equality!!!!) Read Seth Godin’s beautiful marvelous blog: “The brand is a story. But it’s a story about you, not about the brand.”
Donors are more vigilant and savvy than they used to be, and view an organization’s published efficiency a little more skeptically than in the past. Nonprofits spend a lot of effort on ROI when some donors really don’t care even though they pretend to. I agree that donors want to push forward their personal goals for social improvement, often in a very narrow field like saving a particular endangered butterfly when the ROI is pretty hard to measure. They respond to aspirational kinship with other donors — they can imagine them as good friends or at least great guests at a big dinner party.
I agree with Simone. I truly believe charity is dependent on our own personal identities. While interesting, the research questions behind this study miss the point for me.
The interview mentioned above is accompanied by a 10-minute podcast that’s worth a listen. In the podcast, researcher Deborah Small talks about how the experiments were designed to make it easy for participants to make the “right” decision. “Right” meaning participants were expected to choose the gift that does the most good. Small references a malaria prevention organization that raises funds to buy mosquito nets. Mosquito nets are very cheap, and when charities ask for $1.00 donations to buy nets, they get $1.00 donations. When they ask for $0.50 donations to buy mosquito nets, they get $0.50 donations. I think this analysis is missing a key component to what motivates donations. Even when it’s dressed up in an emotional story with compelling visuals, this transactional giving model relies on different decision making.
Malaria awareness and prevention is not part of my identity. I personally don’t think about malaria very much. But if someone asked me for $1 to buy a mosquito net, I’d say yes. If someone asked me for $25 to buy 25 nets, I expect that I would hesitate a minute and then say “sorry not today”. Conversely, I don’t care for my state governor’s platform. When someone asks me for money to beat him in the next election, I fork over $25 with gusto.
As Mimi points out, there is some form of kinship between people who donate to the same organization. We talk a lot about how essential it is to have emotional story telling in your fundraiser tool belt. We don’t often talk about why. In my view, this skill is important because it’s the spectrum of our donors’ stories and life experiences that come together and later are expressed as charitable gifts.
I attended a university library fundraising conference a few years ago, and one of the sessions featured a young alumni entrepreneur who was a major donor to the library within a few years of his graduation. He launched an extremely successful business using the library’s resources. He used library computers, study rooms, and collections to great success. He gives back as a major donor now. He said in his presentation that without that library he might wouldn’t have the same level of success. His giving to the library supports the incredible work of libraries, but it’s motivated by his experience as a student and young entrepreneur. This is an identity-based relationship, and it has nothing to do with his thoughts on charities with more “traditional” missions like curing cancer or ending childhood hunger.
Think we’re all in agreement – the study comes from this impersonal place of “how do I get a donor to make the “right” decision in philanthropy?” Whereas they were chagrined to find people aren’t Spock and don’t give for rational reasons, I delight in the diversity of causes and efforts it supports.
Brandon, you may be interested in http://www.theagitator.net/uncategorized/brainstorming-donor-identities/ that goes through some of the identities we recommend trying to see if they are effective – being directly helped by the organization versus traditional measures are just a couple of various identities you can test.
Mimi, agree that there’s a kinship of like identity donors — the trick is that there are often different identity donors giving for different reasons. As a result, there are sometimes several different donor kinships.
Nick – another great post. I like your “cats vs. dogs” segment. Not to say that “cat people” and “dog people” are on opposite ends of a spectrum, but that in the context of animal welfare fundraising, they have clear and obvious preferences.
Interesting. I suspect that Simone and I have very similar reasons for giving. Years ago I did an exercise designed to get to the root of my personal emotional reasons for giving. Anger at injustice was at the top of the list.
But how does truly effective fundraising change that? I’m thinking of one organization I donate $35 a month to and have for a few years now. My initial $10 *mystery shopping* donation became more after I was brilliantly stewarded (a thank you PHONE CALL, 15 minutes after a $10 gift!) from the get go and led on a journey. It’s a beautiful mission. But frankly it’s not a mission that resonates with my identity. Yet here I am years later.
Loving these discussions on donor identity, Nick. Thank you for always making us that think.