Why I Hate Sugarcoating Issues
I was looking for studies that had been done on what type of images are effective in nonprofit direct marketing. So I headed over to Google Scholar and searched for “use pictures fundraising appeals.”
You would have thought I was searching for snuff films. Here are some of the titles of journal articles that faced me:
- Pictures of me: user views on their representation in homelessness fundraising appeals
- Imaging Humanitarianism: NGO Identity and the Iconography of Childhood
- The ethical dimension of fundraising in the homelessness sector
That’s just on the first couple of pages. Apparently, some academics do not like us using pictures of the suffering we are looking to alleviate in fundraising materials.
This was a strange place for me. I’m rarely in conversations where I’m not the pointy-headed intellectual; or at least on the side of the Pointy Headed Intellectual. .
And yet as I delved deeper, the articles seemed hand-wringy and nihilistic. Many didn’t care if money was raised to solve a problem as long as the problem wasn’t shown.
I’m all for getting permission from people before their stories and pictures are used. Ideally, the subject of a piece will welcome it as a way of getting their story known.
But I also hear stories of brand guidelines or boards getting involved to say that only smiling happy children should be used in fundraising pieces. This makes sense for a current donor who deserves to see the fruits of their gift, but not as much for someone who hasn’t yet helped. A smiling, happy face is dissonant to potential donors. They are being told about a problem and they want to help, but the children are already happy and getting well water.
So, sugarcoating our issues is one of the Things I Hate.
It isn’t just pictures either. How many appeals do you see or hear with underserved people? One gets the idea that the person is a goals thermometer and with just a little bit more of the nonprofit’s program, they can be filled all the way up to whatever the correct level of service is. Or, worse, one sees “underserved” and reads “undeserved” – a significant difference that can be conflated when skimming.
Most times, underserved people are poor. People with food security issues are hungry. People who have been impacted by violent crime are victims (if they choose to so classify). Stakeholders and beneficiaries are the people your donation helps. We can tell the story plainly and evocatively.
Likewise, the problems of the underserved aren’t challenging. They aren’t suboptimal. They are bad. They are hard. If you are talking to the right audience, they might even suck (but not often).
We don’t effectuate things. We don’t create an intervention. We don’t empower things to get done. We don’t help do things. We do things, thanks to the generous support of our donors.
Our opponents know this. Roger talked yesterday about kids being kept in cages. Well, the Border Patrol didn’t like his wording. They said they are “very uncomfortable” with the characterization of the cages as cages. They said it was accurate, mind you. But the word “cages” evokes, where “Type 3B poly-alloy containment vessel” does not.
The government wanted to diminish the impact. Don’t diminish your impact to serve your opponents.
If you must change from the simple, clear word, then metaphor works best. A phrase like “food desert” to connote an area where fresh food is not available triggers a quick a-ha.
We’ve talked about how readability impacts our fundraising. The easier something is to scan and quickly grasp its emotional essence, the more likely someone is to donate to it.
And that’s the goal. We need to touch hearts and minds. We can’t do this with phrases written by a committee. We should be bold. We need to preach reality.
Nick
PS. I also hate hating, but “hate” is a strong word, so hate it is.
11 responses to “Why I Hate Sugarcoating Issues”
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
Great piece, Nick. Amazing what the various nonprofit “police” get into… It’s like intentionally reducing impact…Intentionally doing not-so-good work to not help those in need. It’s political correctness run amok.
And what’s really angering is…We have meaningful research about what works and what doesn’t. We actually do have a viable and valuable body of knowledge about some stuff. So how did these asinine board members and caring but wrong program staff cause so much mess? And why don’t people who know the right stuff stand up and protest harder and more often and…
Okay. Now I’m in a crappy mood to start the day. Thanks lots!!!!
I’ve run into this “debate” for years, at workshop after workshop. Rarely from fundraisers, mind you. Mostly from fundraisers being pressured by program people to “do the right thing” and abandon “poverty porn.” I suspect it’s just a new spin on the old entitlement proposition: “Hey, we’re doing good work; people SHOULD give to us.” People give often on impulse, because their empathy’s aroused. Arousing impulse empathy with sad photos is simply more cost-effective and -efficient than attempting to arouse impulse empathy with happy photos. I’ve put “debate” in air quotes because it’s NOT a real debate about what works best in donor acquisition. That would require testing and data, rather than a philosophical position. Gayle Gifford has convinced me there are two sides to the issue, but Gayle has worked on BOTH sides: in the field as well as a fundraiser. But just her.
Purely anecdotal, but when Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel” starts playing over an ASPCA commercial, I don’t donate. I change the channel. That response is an emotional reaction to the message (just not the one we want). The sad puppies and weepy music make me sad and weepy, so I leave before the solicitation happens. If I were to go online and make the donation, I could probably get through the payment form faster than the commercial ends. Then what? More sad puppies even though I just donated to the sad puppies.
A part of the question may need more study: who is giving when they see heartbreaking imagery and direct language, and how much? Are these people who donate $5 one time and disappear? Are these relationships we can develop over time? I am genuinely unaware of the answers to these questions. If someone has a book or blog recommendation, I would love some reading material!
FWIW: I’m a fan of direct, concise language paired with feel-good imagery (especially when the cause is people-oriented).
Simone, sorry to put you in a bad mood. I can share what perks me up: knowing that things will get better whether by natural selection (not ideal) and sharing of resources and knowledge (better).
Brandon, Tom’s correct and makes a good point about it being donor *acquisition* specifically – most studies indicate that you should emphasize the problem looking to be solved to get new donors and how donors are solving the problem with current donors.
That said, there’s research that indicates that it is less about what you make people feel and more about what you let people know they will feel after they donate. There’s a classic study at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b996/0b3cc3a9230a7569d96cdd34f253295589de.pdf that I’d recommend.
A great article and even greater responses.
As I begin work on today’s appeals, I will carry this with me — especially Nick’s comment “let people know how they will feel after they donate”.
Tom Ahern, Maybe you’d share the link to our discussion so I don’t have to repeat it all of it. The word “efficacy” plays a big part. “Respect.” Special Olympics as an alternative model. White messiah. “Retention” when folks find out that what they thought they were buying through the use of highly emotional photos isn’t the same as the program actually being delivered. We have a POTUS who is highly effective with words and emotion… ends justify means?
Hey Gayle. Not sure that ends ever justify means. Although I do believe, as Nelson Mandela once explained… If we can’t equity peacefully, then we’ll have a revolution. (A colleague of mine worked for Mandela in the very early days.)
Right, Gayle. Thanks for the reminder.
Simone always welcome and admire your forthright and on target comments.
Brandon I feel the same way about a major hospital which I see fundraising at every turn, on TV, at hotels where I stay and more. I am not unmoved by the message, just weary of seeing it over and over and everywhere.
Nick I concur with the vast majority of the article. Where I diverge is on use of a term such as “food desert”. I don’t know that it does conjure up a clear image. An empty pantry, cupboard, fridge, etc. far more clear. In fact I’m just remembering a commercial where a child opens a fridge with just one or two items in it, chilling, impactful, memorable.
Sophie – thanks for helping to clarify my point. I do care about the puppies (and hospitals, and hungry children, and communities without clean water)! I’m just tired of the overblown message.
Nick – thanks for linking to that study. That definitely contextualizes the value of “sad” motivators as acquisition tools.
I too have been stymied when trying to dig up research on the types of images that work best. But it doesn’t take much analysis to see that the overall state of imagery, both still and video, in nonprofit communications is pretty poor — one might even say, “suboptimal.” Even organizations that do a fabulous job copywriting fall down when it comes to accompanying images.
As a result, donors are exposed to repetitive and cliché imagery that feels manipulative, regardless of whether it’s of a hungry child clutching an empty bowl or the grinning boy in the picture above. As some folks here point out, the reaction is more “get me out of here” rather than “I need to give.”
What might help is rather than categorizing images as happy or sad, look to create honest, authentic, compelling and memorable images that tell stories. And the way to do that is to use photojournalism as a guide.
Take a look at how the best newspapers, magazines and online journals use images to augment stories and do so in a memorable way. Look at how they frame shots, use gesture and reaction, and pull the viewer into the scene.
Time to step back and take a serious look at how imagery can enhance organizational messages rather than saying to a volunteer, “Hey, you have a nice camera. Take some pictures.”