Livng Dusday
Over the last two years we’ve collected 573 Giving Tuesday emails. Here’s a lexical analysis that categorizes email subject lines and assigns Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness scores. Why do those scores matter? These are our core, psychological needs.
If my brief interaction with your brand leaves me feeling need satisfied then you’ve created an internal flame of high-quality motivation, the gift that keeps on giving.
If I feel pressured or guilted, unsure if my giving was a good idea, no sense of connection to the cause or the brand or some combination, it’s bad. The scores are created by rating against the genericized, “Gold Standard” and these emails, almost without exception, fail across the board.
The image is what AI thinks about these subject lines; ritualistic revival meets Times Square blinking and flashing neon. I buy the Times Square feel, if only donors were as positively ritualistic as the image suggests. These emails don’t help, they hurt.
Mark me down for just another Livng Dusday.
Kevin
4 responses to “Livng Dusday”
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
Brilliant. Timely. Featured with FULL credit in my next e-news. Thank you.
Thank you Tom, repurpose as you like.
Also love this — bringing science to what I’ve always believed! I like Giving(Back)Tuesday — where we give back to our supporters and thank them for all the good they’ve created. Our very own “Thanks(for)Giving.”
Hi Claire, hope all is well. Thanks for reading and commenting and I like the flipping the script ideas for GT.