Let’s Play A Game
Here’s a game for you, the professional fundraiser.
Below is Wikipedia’s solicitation. It has been floating around for a while now, and, as a behavioral scientist, I wonder why they haven’t changed it yet.
Can you spot the issues with this request? Tell us in the comments section what they are and what suggestions tied to evidence you have for improvement.
[To see what we would do differently (Hint: it’s 4 things), look out for Monday’s post.)
Looking forward to reading your ideas!
Kiki
6 responses to “Let’s Play A Game”
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
Interestingly, Wikipedia’s fundraising messages have been tested tens of thousands of times, and the “most people don’t give” line is one product of that huge amount of testing. It definitely, definitely works for them.
I did a blog about this last year: https://medium.com/@chriskfundraising/why-doesnt-social-proof-work-for-wikipedia-fundraising-65d55a047911
Hi Chris, thanks for sharing their report – good to know Wikipedia tested the negative social proof message out. That answers part of the research question I had in mind – the other half will be revealed on Monday. Let’s continue this conversation then!
Indeed – look forward to seeing your other thoughts!
I would suggest that most of it be in the “I” the founder, vs “we” Wikipedia voice to strengthen the I/you direct connection with reader. Everything else looks good–it matches who they are, their tone. I have given to them, and hardly give to anyone 🙂
Just looked up their financial statement for 2019 which they post on their website. $111 Million posted in donations and contributions, and a pretty fine balance sheet.
Thanks Gayle – the fact they raise good money on this request doesn’t mean they couldn’t raise even more if it was adapted. That’s why Wikipedia keeps testing messages too. We just wanted to identify key behavioural principles that could be tested to see if they could increase giving further. But you’re right, my word choice (“issues”) was probably not the right one.