Pavlovian Fundraising
Go ahead online fundraisers. Just treat your donors like commodities. Sheep to be herded. Baah! Baah!
I can’t stand Pavlovian fundraising.
My definition of Pavlovian fundraising is when the fundraiser uses any device other than the cause or mission itself to generate the gift. The worst offenders are you online fundraisers.
Yes, we know devices like matches and premiums work. But to me they’re like fingernails on the chalkboard. Would we justify torture if it worked?!
The worst example of Pavlovian fundraising in my book is the bidding process. Otherwise known as the matching gift.
In the example below, EDF promises me a “not once, not twice, but THREE times” match on my gift …
The lead is the match. The purpose that might actually arouse my generosity eventually follows … the tail on the dog. No question about what this fundraiser thinks works.
OK, treat me like a sheep dog. And I’ll respond like a dog.
I’m up for auction. Who wants my money badly enough to beat a THREE times match? Going once … going twice.
Sold for a quintuple match plus a refrigerator magnet!
Now that you ‘got’ me, what are you going to give me for an encore?
Tom
4 responses to “Pavlovian Fundraising”
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
Interesting that they’re seeking a first gift this way, too. With little explanation of what the gift will do.
Perhaps a donor could add a note and request that the 3X match be used to renew their support yearly through 2018. I’m sure it’s done.
Matches – whether DM or online – work because they create that collective social norm. The match is the trigger because that gift goes 2 or 3 times as far is a message that’s particularly salient for that $25 or $50 donor who I’ve heard (just even back on a donor survey) whether or not their gift has any impact (never mind a significant one) on a cause.
These people from EDF have been warmed up online. This isn’t the first email they’ve ever gotten. They know, or are learning about the cause.
A match, for so many people, is a gift that does double the good. They’re giving to a cause they care about, and they were also able to do more good because they gave a certain way. It’s about leverage. It’s a motivator to get that commitment (and we use emotional and psychological motivators ALL the time in fundraising). Why is a match any different?
I have to say I’m with Holly on this one. However, I don’t believe a match really needs to go beyond dollar-per-dollar. If I recall correctly, Adrian Sargeant’s research has shown that a match offer’s effect on a gift is the same regardless of the match level. Or that could be someone else’s research. My apologies for not checking, but I’m about to leave for vacation! 🙂 Happy holidays, agitators.