Know Their Worldview
Marketing maven Seth Godin recently published his “post-industrial” version of the “A is for Apple” alphabet.
In his alphabet, “W” is for “Worldview.” Here’s what he says:
“I first encountered this term via George Lakoff. Your worldview is the set of expectations and biases you bring to a situation before any new data appears. Some people hear a politician say something and hate it, while others are thrilled by it. Is it the thing that was said or the person who said it? Some people hear that Apple is about to launch a new product and they get out their wallets, others flee–before they even know what it is. If you don’t understand the worldview of the people you’re selling to, you will fail.”
Fundraisers should focus on the last sentence: “If you don’t understand the worldview of the people you’re selling to, you will fail.”
What steps are you taking to really understand your donors … and through them, your prospects?
Do you:
- Conduct surveys or focus groups?
- Talk to your volunteers and clients?
- Read your white mail and 800# logs?
- Engage donors and members face-to-face?
- Solicit feedback routinely in any way?
- Read “the literature” on your target audience?
- Analyze what they pay attention to on your website?
Out of all this, you should be able to formulate a pretty accurate picture of your donors’ worldview … the lens through which they process whatever you’re throwing their way.
Fundraisers aren’t in the business of changing worldviews (although your organization and its program and communications staff might indeed have that as their mission) … fundraisers must align with, tap into, and leverage the worldview that already defines their constituency. Mis-understand that worldview and, as Godin says, “you will fail.”
Tom
One response to “Know Their Worldview”
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
Tom,
This is a great post! Thanks!
I read Seth Godin’s blog piece on his “post-industrial A to Z digital battledore” late last night, and I reacted as you did, making note of those items that carried wisdom for folks laboring in nonprofit advancement.
You are right on the money in highlighting “W is for Worldview” for its significance to those in nonprofit fundraising, but I would suggest that the points you raise should not be lost on those who focus exclusively on marketing and communication for nonprofit organizations. In fact, this gets to my own “worldview” of the nonprofit advancement process — that fundraisers also should be marketing- and communication-focused and the marketing and communication folks should be fundraising-focused. It’s all part of the same fabric.
I can recall a number of past Agitator posting threads in which the focus has been on the importance of research in donor-file and prospect-list management, and we all made the point that not knowing what motivates the giving behaviors of those on your lists is to beg for failure overall. It seems to me that our thought process in those past threads often was prompted by concerns about direct-mail fundraising outcomes. That makes sense, but my own “upbringing” in nonprofit advancement taught me to remain dedicated to constituent/donor research in all methodologies we use, from face-to-face solicitation to special events.
By the way, it occurred to me as I read it that there are at least two other items in Seth’s post-industrial alphabet that might have special meaning for those in nonprofit advancement.
“C is for Choice” suggests to me that nonprofit organizations must strive to differentiate themselves from their competition (both within and without their particular mission focus) in their marketing/communication and fundraising case articulation to potential constituents/donors. The differentiation message must always be based on fact and reality and not on fantasy and hyperbole. Otherwise, prospects (and currents) might walk!
“D is for Darwin” suggests to me that nonprofits must be constantly and consistently vigilant where changes in their external environments are concerned. As Seth points out: “the nature of information and a connected society means that ‘everything’ might change in just a few months. Ideas that spread, win and organizations that learn from their mistakes lead the rest of us.” Another vote, I believe, for the good habit of constituent/donor research.