Please Don’t Eat The Poinsettia
I thought a holiday motif would be appropriate to remind us of the many myths we take for gospel. Some are true, some are not.
As in: “Feed a cold, starve a fever.” [True] … “Don’t sit too close to the television you’ll hurt your eyes.” [Not true] … “Don’t swallow your gum; it stays in your stomach for seven years! [Not true] … “Don’t crack your knuckles or you’ll get arthritis.” [Not true], and “Chicken soup is what you need for that cold.” [True]
And the seasonal admonition: “Don’t eat the poinsettia, it’s poison.” Although poinsettias are absolutely harmless, the fact is that poison control centers across the nation receive thousands of calls this time of year from panicked folks whose kid or dog ate the poinsettia.
And so the same goes with fundraising. Lots of myths, aphorisms and the equivalent of ‘old wives tales’. Some true, some not, and many for which there’s little proof one way or the other.
We’ll be exploring these a lot in the coming year as we intensify our focus on evidence-based fundraising as opposed to myth-based or even experience-based fundraising. So, please send along the ‘old wives tales’ or ‘best practices’ you’d like us to explore.
Roger
P.S. In case you have a poinsettia or two as holiday decoration around the house please don’t forget to water ’em.
3 responses to “Please Don’t Eat The Poinsettia”
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 few more you’ll like:
Don’t roll your eyes, if the clock strikes 12, your eyes will stay like that!
and another one:
Eat your carrots, it’s good for your eyes!
Can’t wait to help demystify some of these myths… cheers, erica
What a great end-of-year blog, Roger. Sometimes when I think of you, I think of the movie Lethal Weapon. And Mel Gibson calling you “Rog.” (I can’t remember if I’ve told you that before.”
Eating carrots isn’t good for your eyes, Erica? Bummer. Oh well, I like carrots anyway.
Here’s one I’d love to see explored: Matching gifts.
They certainly raise money. However, 1. the organization probably would have received the “match” as a regular gift, and 2. I really wonder if it does generate “extra” gifts, or do donors just choose this opportunity to give?