Earlier this month, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) reported on its efforts to convert to an opt-in only organization:

• 80% have not actively opted in to receiving mail
• 55% have not actively opted in to receiving email
• At least 91% have not actively opted in to receiving a phone call.

Wow. We knew retention is low, but not usually that low.

They are not alone. Royal National Lifeboat Institution had their file cut in half with an opt-in scheme. For the Rose Road Association, it was 85% attrition. Save the Children UK had a 60% opt-out rate when they sent a communication to donors alerting them to the existence of the ‘opt-out’ option.

Those of us in the UK’s former colonies are likely saying “There but for the grace of God, go I.” Or more secularly, “thank goodness we don’t have an opt-in scheme required by the government.”

But we know that the donors that actually ask to hear from us are better donors on average. And the issue that plagues these opt in processes are the same ones on both sides of the pond: poor behavioral science that can burn donors.

As DonorVoice’s Kevin Schulman put it:

“Does anybody think the opt-in rates shared by CRUK reflect a perfect expression of ‘true’ supporter preference? That this is a desirous or positive outcome for them or their supporters?

Why is it that the percentage of people in a country electing to donate their organs can fluctuate from low single digits to over 95%? Answer: it has nothing to do with different cultures or norms or anything remotely related to ‘true’ preference.”

There’s real value in getting this behavioral science right. While I’d recommend Dr. Kiki Koutmeridou’s white paper or video part 1  and part 2, here are some important findings for the TL;DRers:

• Donors strongly prefer control over their communications – more than any other aspect of an opt-in request. This preference translates into results. One US charity asked recipients to be members of a select club that pledged four gifts per year with updates on impact, but not solicitations. The nonprofit also gave their donors control over how and when they received communications. The results were a response rate of seven percent and cost to raise a dollar of $.23 – both significantly better than traditional one-time gift asks that didn’t include donor control.
• Faces looking at the person receiving the communication help increase compliance (and donations, according to a study of countertop displays)
• Identifying donors with a label specific to them and your organization (e.g., “if you are someone with a connection to homeless people”) can increase compliance as well.

But her most important finding: much of this is organization specific. For example, some social proof statements actually dissuaded people from opting in, rather than attracting them.

So if you would like to test how to make your forms donor friendly, or get feedback from your donors on improvements, let me know at nellinger@thedonorvoice.com; we’d love to help.