Slow Down & Speed Up Interest
You ever watched paint dry? How about a high-speed car chase? It turns out slowing down video can make it better but only if the scene is sufficiently fast or complex.
And the slowing down accentuates the affect in both directions – positive/negative videos get judged more positively/negatively. A child or animal running with joy in slo-mo amplifies the positive.
Slowing down a horrible event like a natural disaster or drunk driving crash or an animal being injured can reinforce the negatives. Jurors believe a shooter acts with more intent if the surveillance video is slowed down.
A caveat, if you’re going to make a bad situation feel worse than make doubly sure you show how supporting your cause will make the situation and donor feel better. The last thing you want is donors thinking the best way to avoid the real negative stuff is tuning out, which happens all the time with “shock and awe” imagery and footage.
Even the mundane can benefit from slowing down but only if you zoom in for a close up. For example, a handshake between a beneficiary and a volunteer zoomed in and slowed down can make it feel more real and appreciated.
Why does this happen? It’s easier for us to process if it’s moving slower since humans can only process a limited about of visual information per unit of time. We pick up on the details better and what’s processed easier is more easily liked.
And this slo-mo effect works best when people are making quick, heuristic judgments versus deep, intensive thinking and review. In case you’re wondering, 99% of giving happens in the former context.
Kevin
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