Nature Conservancy Runs Gauntlet
Regular Agitator readers know about The Agitator Gauntlet — our challenge for fundraisers to present their appeals for the scrutiny of other Agitator readers.
The Nature Conservancy has bravely stepped forward to submit two online appeals they have made attempting to recruit current donors into their monthly giving program.
In submitting their appeals, Sue Citro and Amanda Graham of TNC raise a question about a challenging aspect of monthly donor recruiting … establishing the sense of urgency that will encourage a sustaining gift.
But is urgency the key to sustained giving?
Fundraising folklore would suggest that monthly givers represent the part of your constituency that is most bought into your organization — emotionally and intellectually — as an “institution”. They are versed in and committed enough to your issue or cause, and the strategy you have for reaching your goal, that they appreciate the need of your organization for day-in and day-out support. It’s not all about today’s “crisis” — the stuff of most special appeals.
So we invite you to look at the TNC appeals on two levels — style and mechanics on these online efforts, and the content/message used to generate the monthly commitment.
Here are the two appeals …
http://support.nature.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=45101.0&dlv_id=0
http://support.nature.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=52143.0&dlv_id=0
And what say you about “urgency” and monthly giving? TNC and The Agitator eagerly await your comments.
Tom
9 responses to “Nature Conservancy Runs Gauntlet”
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
Ref Urgency & monthly giving
I don’t believe that there is one simple answer regarding urgency.
Every appeal must have a reason why the gift (or any other action for that matter) is needed now.
But equally if all your appeals to your supporters shout emergency all the time it very soon becomes unbelievable.
In terms of the supporter types and monthly givers “intellectual buy in” my experience and data analysis undertaken over a number of charities within the UK indicates that there are, at least, three types of monthly givers.
1. There are low value regular givers at perhaps £2 or £3 per month. For these supporters there is no evidence that as a total they are more committed or loyal (although of course some of these supporters will be). The origin of this ask was that it removed one of the barriers to giving – the monthly ask was small and regular so you could say “yes” and then it’s done. They are regular givers not necessarily committed givers.
2. There are cash givers who have become monthly regular givers. These supporters are more likely to be “committed” they have started by giving a cash gift and then made a decision to convert to a regular payment.
3. Those who are mid or high value regular givers and these supporters are again more likely to be committed givers
This categorisation is of course a simplification and doesn’t factor in important considerations such as length of time the supporter has been on file, how many times they have upgraded and how many times they have rejected upgrading their support. and many others but it is perhaps a start?
Allan
On urgency, one could argue that the environment is in a permanent state of emergency. I don’t see much of a problem with that.
The general design , copy and tone of both emails are quite good except for two things. One, why on earth weren’t the messages personalised instead of the distant “Dear Loyal conservancy Supporter”? After all, TNC knows who these people are.
The other one: why not have gone directly to the donation form with a short introduction reiterating why monthly giving is so convenient for the cause and the donor instead of a two step procedure?
Before worrying about urgency, I’d say these letters need to create a sense of immediacy — in other words, make the issues and goals seem tangible and achievable to readers. Unfortunately, there are people whose eyes glaze over as soon as they see a number (I’m one of them), so the bullet points describing efforts like “reconnect 25 square miles” and “transfer more than 3,000 acres” left me, and I suspect some others, unmoved. The letter started on a more intimate note, with the “friendship” theme — maybe this could have been carried forward with more story-like descriptions of how sustainers could become not only friends of the Nature Conservancy, but of nature itself.
So glad we’re in the Gauntlet — thanks Tom! We really want to hear what others might try to drive more new monthly givers so pls share.
Melvyn’s point about personalization, just wanted to clarify. The “Loyal Conservancy Supporter” only appears for someone not on our email list; that’s the default that appears if we don’t know your name.
We’ve struggled with your second point — some of our tests resulted in higher returns having a landing page as part of the process. Anyone else had similar/different results?
Thanks Iiona — those are great ideas!
I actually think the second mail (listing your achievements) was better than the first one because it at least gave reasons to sign up. The first one was lacking in that respect, I felt.
On the urgency thing, it’s all about planning your communications with them – is it a one-off or part of a gradual programme to recruit people over two or three points of contact? Overall, I’d go for ‘big picture’ rather than ‘urgent’ if you’re going after a monthly gift.
Lastly, on a technical point, there’s no reason to have the text in the right-hand panel as part of the image. Anyone who doesn’t load your images in their email client won’t see that text so you should really just have that as HTML.
#2 was much more compelling, although I would have started the first paragraph by thanking the donor for their longstanding support. Assuming you can segment, and if your system allows it, for those who give frequently I’d mention their total number of gifts in the last year and emphasize the convenience for THEM of automatic giving.
No matter what, any communication should be about them, and how they are the one who can make a real difference to something they care about, which is not an organization, but what that org. represents.
The 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph begins with the phrase “comprised of”. This is an INcorrect use of the word “comprised”.
(Check your dictionary and/or reference books people!)
If an organization can’t be bothered to use correct grammar, how can I believe that you’ll take the time and care to use my donation(s) correctly?
The 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph begins with the phrase “comprised of”. This is an INcorrect use of the word “comprised”.
(Check your dictionary and/or reference books people!)
If an organization can’t be bothered to use correct grammar, how can I believe that you’ll take the time and care to use my donation(s) correctly?