Now Be Honest
Over the years, we’ve seen that most donors give on average to six or seven charities or causes. Maybe you fit this profile.
I’m going to presume that most of the nonprofits you personally support communicate regularly with you via email (assuming you’ve given them permission).
Now I ask you to be honest …
Do you really look forward to getting any of those emails? Do you ever worry anxiously … "When will my next message from Cause X arrive? Maybe they’ve dropped me off their list!" Do you ever say to yourself … "I can’t wait to get my next email (i.e., communication) from Charity Z!"
If there’s ANY charity or cause that has built this bond with you — keeping in mind such a relationship is by definition reciprocal — then they deserve a gigantic gold star!
And you should really reflect on that relationship. How have they maintained that "first love" level of urgency and anticipation? How do they make their communications so relevant and compelling to you? What are they doing tactically to hold your attention?
Once you figured out what they are doing right, turn it around … reverse engineer it. How can the communications of your organization provide that same experience for your donors and members?
If none of the charities you personally support has built this bond with you, why are you still giving? Are your donors this forgiving?!
Tom
One response to “Now Be Honest”
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
A telephone survey my company cosponsored about five years ago reached 500 direct mail donors in Canada and 500 in the USA. One of the questions we asked attempted to learn the number of charities each donor supported in a given year. To our astonishment, the average number in both countries was 14. Those were pretty big samples, and it can’t be a coincidence that the number was the same in both countries. So I tend to believe the findings — even though I, too, would have guessed the number would be six or seven, as your post suggests.