I Give It A ‘B’
Recently I received a Quarterly Impact Report from Possible, a nonprofit providing health care services in Nepal. It’s a modest-sized organization that has treated a bit over 300,000 patients in that one country since 2008.
I watch this organization because I’m interested in the challenge of providing quality health care in the most demanding of circumstances. I like their model and I like the way they communicate about what they are doing.
Given my enthusiasm, then, why did I give their Impact Report ‘only’ a B grade?
On the one hand, the report provides plenty of numbers, and a very clear picture of how Possible goes about improving the delivery of health services. Mostly what I take away from the report is, yes, noteworthy progress … and yes, very impressive professional operation.
Deserving of support.
And I also liked the fluid way that, once inside the Report (reading the PDF online), I had ample, easy opportunity to flick over to their very well-designed website to get additional program information and organisational details, and to explore giving options, including how to help fundraise (although I was disappointed to find a glitch that prevented making a monthly donation … presumably soon to be fixed).
So, what didn’t I like? Why only a B grade?
Their report seemed to assume I was purely rational … someone to be impressed and motivated only by facts and figures. I kept waiting for the patient profile or story that would tug at my emotions, make the progress stats come alive … make giving irresistable.
I found it disappointing and odd that the report never delivered in that way … I say “odd” because their website delivers very well in both ‘head and heart’ terms.
I urge you to take some time to check out the Possible ‘package’ — the Impact Report and the website. Theirs represents a good effort against which to evaluate your own reporting and website.
Do you have enough heart in yours? Does your reporting make giving irresistable?
Tom
2 responses to “I Give It A ‘B’”
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
Looks like a great organization, but the report goes offtrack starting in the heading and copy below. “We” and “our” both focus on the organization rather than their amazing donors.
Agree with Tom Belford’s assessment. Not to mention that “impactful” is not a word. It’s right up there with “strategize.”