Partisan Purse Strings
Since the November presidential election, many Agitator readers, Tom and I have pondered the possible effects of President Trump’s victory on fundraising and activism. Here and here among several posts.
Now we have some data from a CNBC Survey showing that U.S. consumerism has become so politically charged that Americans are showing their partisanship through their purses and wallets.
Of course, that’s not news if you’re on the receiving end at ACLU or Planned Parenthood. But here are some stats that go beyond a few organizations to include all parts of the U.S. demographic and political spectrum.
Here are the results from CNBC’s All-America Economic survey that polled 804 Americans across the country from April 3-6. (Margin of error +/- 3.5%)
- More of the financial activism has been anti-Trump, with 21% saying their actions were in opposition to the president, and 15% in support.
- 49% of Democrats say they’ve made decisions with their purse or wallets because of the election results. 28% of Republicans said the same. As did 34% of Independents.
- 26% of the respondents said they have made a political or charitable contribution because of the president, with the clear majority of these in opposition.
- And interestingly, more of that 26% were making charitable rather than political contributions.
- As millions flowed into groups like the ACLU following the immigration ban, millions more were used to express buying preferences at the mall.
- 21% of the public reported making a purchase decision because of the election, by either buying or boycotting brands or products. (Think Ivanka Trump’s high heels at Nordstroms.)
- However, those buying/boycotting decisions were equally split between those acting in support of or against the president.
- Demographically pro-Clinton, older and more wealthy Americans were the most active. Those in the Midwest and South with lower incomes less active.
You can see the CNBC video report here.
What — for good or ill — is your organization experiencing?
Roger
Behavioral Science Q & A
Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]
Read Full Answer
The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]
Read Full Answer
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