If Banks Can Do It …
At least half of the 12 biggest banks in America are developing or have released live chat capabilities on their websites according to a piece in yesterday's iMedia Connection. Well, if big banks –not usually associated with terms like “cutting-edge” or “personal service” — can use live chats to give their customers help with loans and pitch new services, why hasn't the non-profit world leaped on this?
The enormous potential for better communications, more effective advocacy, upgraded contributions, sales of merchandise and just plain increased donor loyalty are obvious.
So why isn't this happening? Probably because 'donor service' is viewed as a must-tolerate expense, but “Hey, let's keep the costs down.” And of course there's “Hey, how can we afford to monitor our website 24 hours a day?” Or, “We don't want to look too much like Big Brother.”
Well, I'd argue that non-profits can ill afford NOT to be experimenting with and testing this inexpensive technology. Not when the bankers are reporting that their online customers maintain 25% bigger account balances. And certainly not when more and more members/donors/information seekers are coming on line.
I hope it's obvious from the number of our posts on donor loyalty, retention and the dramatic rise in the use of new media to suggest we think a sea change is at hand. And, as is always the case, many organizations won't wake up until it's too late and a more donor-friendly competitors have eaten their lunch.
We'd love to hear from those who are using or have seen on-line chat effectively used by a charity, educational, or advocacy organization.
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