Lesson From Greenpeace: Closing The Deal
On July 25 I noticed, viewed and reviewed on The Agitator an online video produced by Greenpeace, titled Lego: Everything is NOT Awesome. It deals with oil exploration by Shell in the Arctic.
I was hugely impressed and indicated my expectation that Greenpeace would probably do more than merely bask in the satisfaction that I was one of (then) 5 million viewers of their powerful video.
Well, I was right.
By the end of the day I had received two messages from Greenpeace New Zealand. Why New Zealand? Because the Greenpeace online system had tracked the location of my IP address. And so the ‘locals’ followed up with me. Simple enough technically … but it means someone went to the trouble to think through to follow-up most effectively.
Here’s the first email I received … (click to enlarge)
Very straightforward. No frills. Just asking me to share the message and — oh, yes — there was an under-stated ‘Donate’ link.
Then, shortly thereafter, same day, I received this message … (click to enlarge)
This message aimed to bring the message even closer to home … to upcoming national elections here in New Zealand. A call-to-action this time, not a fundraising appeal.
In my opinion, Greenpeace could not have handled my initial expression of interest any better — timely, personalized, totally consistent with the initial message that won my attention, easy-to-use options to act and/or give.
This is the way it’s supposed to work. How would your response stack up against Greenpeace’s?
Greenpeace — and Greenpeace NZ — you deserve a raise!
Tom
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