In Pursuit Of The Trivial
Slowly, but surely, research in the field of behavioral science is making its way into Fundraising Land.
Over the past several years commercial marketers have begun to discover practices which those pundits and commentators who favor high-blown ‘strategic’ insights often consider ‘trivial’.
What once seemed relatively trivial has proven to hold monumental importance compared to the size of the intervention or ‘tweak’.
In fact the venerable UK Ogilvy agency now uses as a near-motto, “Dare to be trivial”.
And for several years the application of behavioral science in marketing has been recognized through the annual Nudge Awards, representing the “greatest examples of behavioural science in action”.
No doubt the name was drawn from the book Nudge by authors Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. This bestseller draws on decades of research in the fields of behavioral science and economics. It offers a new perspective on preventing the countless mistakes we make and shows us how sensible “choice architecture” can successfully nudge people toward the best decisions.
Dr. Kiki Koutmeridou, Behavioral Science Strategist at DonorVoice, posted a piece yesterday titled, What your donation buys: How to get a 42% lift in revenue. It illustrates the importance of focusing on something as seemingly ‘trivial’ as constructing effective, suggested donation levels.
The illustration Kiki uses — the example for which DonorVoice won the ‘2017 Best Insight’ in the Nudge Awards — involves a test conducted for UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.
“Charities are very good at making the abstract act of giving more tangible by explaining what different levels of donations will buy. In the example below, UNHCR USA informs people that $45 can buy high thermal blankets while $85 can buy a heating stove. These symbolic gifts make the abstract donation amount feel more real and increase engagement. So far so good,” says Kiki.
Below is the ‘control’ donation page using what Kiki terms the ‘asymmetrical structure’.
But there’s a catch, she warns:
“Donation decisions, especially the decision about the amount, can be highly influenced by the way we ask. This asymmetrical structure, where a higher donation amount is linked to a completely different symbolic gift, is the standard practice for many charities. But is it the most effective one?”
Perhaps not. Kiki goes on to illustrate with the ‘test’ donation page that was used against the ‘control’ by UNHCR USA. It shows a more effective way to present symbolic gifts on a donation page or gift form.
The result? The test page produced a 42% increase in income over the control.
You can find the details of the test and the rationale behind it on Kiki’s post here.
And remember, the 42% increase in total revenue was achieved merely by changing the way gift symbols or descriptions are presented. A small, ‘trivial’ tweak with big consequences.
What are some of your ‘trivial’ fundraising pursuits?
Roger
P.S. Especially for UK readers:
Because you’re moving toward an opt-in model for donor communications, Kiki will be holding a session on opt-in and covering the behavioral science “how to’s” for this sometimes vexing issue.
The Session will be held on June 21st and is titled: GDPR: Behavioral Science Behind Consent.
Again, that’s June 28 at 9AM Eastern/8AM Central, 2PM London time and 3PM Central European Time.
Join DonorVoice and Blackbaud in a discussion on how your charity can maximise its communications, design and calls to action to improve your opt-in rates into the lead up of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).
You don’t have to be British or European to benefit from this session. Motivating donors to opt in to communications is valuable everywhere in the world. So please sign up to explore how to maximise your communications, and design calls to action to improve your opt-in rates.
4 responses to “In Pursuit Of The Trivial”
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
The formula for testing success:
1) Start with a theory of human behavior with existing evidence (i.e. reason to believe).
2) Think about how this applies to specific mkt/fundraising goal/challenge.
3) Formulate a specific hypothesis to test – e.g. this test will increase average gift but not conversion for this reason.
4) Develop a testing plan to test this and control for other explanations.
5) Do the appropriate statistical test to determine success/failure.
6) Find a winner and more importantly, know why it won.
Sound hard? It is. And it should be. It is way past time to raise the bar on what is required to use the donor’s money for testing.
Hell, it is way past time to raise the requirements bar on knowledge of human behavior and what is required to call oneself a fundraiser.
Fabulous! Exactly why The Agitator is worth the $$$. Thank you. I happen to have the USA for UNHCR giving page open right now. It looks like they are still using the control, not the symmetrical test approach that produced 42% higher revenue. Were there other factors weighing against switching to the new approach, I wonder? Or are maybe your results so new, the nonprofit hasn’t had a chance to switch? Just curious before I tell the world to “DO THIS! Kiki, DV and The Agitator say so!” Feel free to answer via email. We share this client.
Great question Tom. This research is relatively new but I doubt that’s the reason they haven’t updated the site yet.
In full honesty, we also recommended another round of testing to control for the item that is shown in the symmetrical list. We suggested that in order to be sure that it wasn’t the blankets, which was the item used in our symmetrical structure, that were creating this favourable result. So we recommended they tested 3 different symmetrical pages showing a different benefit each (medicine, blankets, radiators) and compare them against the control.
However, this second round of testing wasn’t managed by us so there were some significant limitations that confounded the findings. Despite that, all in all, a symmetrical structure – regardless the item shown – was either more profitable or performs exactly the same as the control. Like I said, the limitations could explain this variance or it could actually be that charities should test to see which item would be best to use.
That’s where I left things so I’m not sure what UNHCR is planning to do with these interesting findings. In my view, it’s definitely worth exploring and I’d encourage other charities to test this themselves.
Happy to talk about this more, if you have other questions.
This is a great post and really interesting data. Miriam Brosseau at See3 wrote a blog post about this because she sees a result that is wholly predictable if we think about human need for cohesion. Miriam writes:
“Humans are storytelling creatures. We share stories with one another (arguably the thing that most separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom), and we’re constantly telling ourselves the story of, well, ourselves – in our heads. All the time. According to research in the burgeoning field of positive psychology, this subconscious mental habit is part of the bigger human need for coherence – a sense of narrative order to our lives. A hallmark of a healthy, happy, flourishing human being is the ability to tell your own story, and feel like it makes sense.”
Miriam argues that this example works better than the control not because it was simple, but because it sticks with one cohesive story. You can read her whole post here: http://see3.com/blog/dare-be-coherent