I’m a bit reluctant as I begin to write this post. It’s about neuroscience insights into effective advertising … based on research in India!

How far could that exotica (erotica?) be from our present pre-occupation with the hard core survival issues of fundraising, like donor retention and measuring lifetime value?

The recent drift of Agitator comments indicates that our sector is still struggling mightily to figure out and adopt the basics — e.g., whether basic retention strategies — including donor service — can make it into nonprofit fundraising budgets … and if they don’t make it, who’s to blame (or should I say more diplomatically, hold accountable?).

[Unfortunately, the struggle our present nonprofits seem to be having with incorporating the basics, like measuring lifetime value, might even proliferate.

As reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy recently, since the US Internal Revenue Service simplified the application process in 2013, the number of granted applications for charitable status has been double the 2013 level in each year since — for example, 86,915 successful applications were granted in 2015 and 79,545 in 2016. There are now 1.8 million tax-exempt organizations in the US.

The simplified application was designed to help smaller groups (less than $50,000 in annual gross revenue) apply for tax-exempt status. If 80,000 new charities each did ever manage to raise $50k per year, that’d be $4 billion! Of course they won’t. Perhaps this burst of small scale charitable energy is simply to be applauded and we should cross our fingers that the monies they do raise will be well spent, accomplishing the aspirations of their donors. Better still, maybe their donations will represent new giving, enlarging the charitable pot. I think the odds are against that.]

But I digress.

Back to neuroscience.

In the commercial world, ‘customer retention’ is old news, last century. So yes, there’s an un-ending literature on loyalty programs, maximizing LTV, optimizing customer experience etc, but it’s getting tired and stale.

Avant-garde commercial marketers know that moving people is all about emotion, and so they are beavering away probing consumers’ brain waves, eye movements, facial expressions, heart rates and skin response as they are exposed to advertising stimuli of all sorts.

This brief article from Nielsen provides a good example of what this research yields, or tries to — in this case, how to select the best elements of a :60 second commercial to make an even more effective :30 second commercial.

Some of this neuroscience stuff is shaky, freaky … and even scary when viewed in the context of ‘better manipulating’ unsuspecting consumers (and ultimately even donors). But it’s exciting and new.

I confess it’s my version of the ‘shiny new gadget’ … my own intrigue with the ‘new’, versus the basics I know we Agitators should be hammering into the fundraising community.

When I read the Nielsen article over the weekend, I realised why I was so grumpy last week in my Agitator posts … I was flat-out bored with the basics.

God love all you consultants and on-the-firing-line fundraisers who are not. Who, like Roger, remain determined to educate boards and non-fundraiser executives and each other about the fundamentals of sound fundraising practice … about the key building blocks like retention and LTV.

I truly admire your dedication and persistence, and will try to shake off my lethargy and do better myself at helping to reinforce the message.

Tom

P.S. Which isn’t to say I won’t write anymore about neuroscience and mobile video and … !