Identity Triggers Only Work When They Matter
Teachers were asked by their school district to complete a survey. The experiment was a 2×2 design (one of our faves):
The result? A nothingburger. No difference in survey participation between A-D, randomly assigned groups.
To quote Paul Harvey, “And now for the rest of the story.”
Researchers noticed a difference in survey participation on one of their external, control variables – teacher effectiveness. More effective teachers were more likely to fill out the survey.
This led to a post-hoc analysis that found what we often find; test ideas work differently for different people.
Priming the Identity of the teacher by referencing “teacher” in the email survey invite did work but only for those teachers who are good teachers.
Identities matter when they matter. Calling me a donor or dog lover or conservationist or researcher or father only matters if,
- I am that thing and
- That thing matters to me
A proxy for the latter is the person is good at it.
Kevin
3 responses to “Identity Triggers Only Work When They Matter”
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
Wondering if you think the label “teacher” mattered and if another term, like “educator” or “mentor” could make a difference. Along those lines, can choosing a label other than “donor” (perhaps leader, partner, concerned friend, etc.) trigger “that thing that matters to me”?
Hi T (guessing it isn’t Mr. T though that would be cool),
It’s unlikely in this instance in that the thing that makes the label matter is being good at the job. For those who are good teachers they’d probably also identify with “educator” and you’d see the same effect. I suppose in a fit of irony there are bad teachers who have a lofty view of themselves as “educators” but don’t identify with the “teacher” label because it diminishes the self-regard they hold.
Having said that, labels can matter. We have done lots of research showing some people think of themselves as “members”, others as “donors” even though they are doing the same act for the same charity. In many cases, those who consider themselves members are more committed and give more. It probably helps to refer to them that way so it reinforces that sense of self. Can you refer to a person who thinks of themselves as a “donor” as member and have it help increase their connection to the brand (Committment) and giving? Maybe but not likely.
There is some testing to show that you should use nouns vs. verbs – thanks for being a donor vs. thanks for donating. The latter feels more transitory, the more more permanent. But, that effect is likely small and not one that creates long-term lift.
The better path is digging deeper on Identity, getting below the superficial labels that describe their connection to your org (e.g. partner, concerned friend) and instead reference who they are independent of your brand. What is it about them that connects them to your mission (conservationist, animal lover, patient, caregiver) vs. your brand (friend, member, donor)?
Hope that helps.
“who they are independent of your brand” is exactly what i was looking for. Thanks.
(Yeah, being Mr. T could be cool, but…)