Thank God For These Studies!
If your job is to raise money or to fashion communications designed to move donors, members or supporters to take action, then I have two monumental, ‘stop everything you’re doing’ studies to share with you.
Not!
The first study was reported by the NY Times with the headline: Donors Give More When They Have a Sense of Belonging. DUH!
Message to anyone presently working as a fundraiser who needs a study to verify this concept … hang up your cleats!
That said, the injury is compounded when one reads the design of this research. There are many ways a charity might offer its donors a sense of ‘belonging’. However in this experiment, the only difference in the test groups was that one segment was asked for a general gift to a university, while the other segment had the option of donating to a specific college within the university.
A test of ‘belonging’?! Yes, I guess, but only in the most superficial sense. In any event, here is the groundbreaking conclusion:
“The researchers found that while there was little difference in the probability that the individuals in the two groups would make a donation, the people in the experimental group gave much larger amounts. That was true even for those who ultimately decided to donate to the general fund. Just being given the choice of active involvement, and then not taking it, increased the donation.”
So, as I read that, it’s actually having a choice that mattered … not ‘belonging’. Oh well.
The second study is a work in progress.
Reported also by the NY Times (summer must really be slow at the NY Times): Participation Index Seeks to Determine Why One Film Spurs Activism, While Others Falter.
As the headline suggests, this study intends to look more into activism than donating (arguably a form of activism, but I digress). The conundrum, as the researchers see it, is that some issue-driven films, documentaries, TV programs and online videos are more effective at moving viewers to action than others. They ask: Why?
So their project seeks to develop the “Participant Index” to measure the impact of such media, hopefully enabling refinement of presentation techniques.
Viewers will watch selected media and then be asked “an escalating set of questions about their emotional response and level of engagement. Did it affect you emotionally? Did you share information about it? Did you boycott a product or company? Did it change your life?”
Good luck on this one researchers! The team is highly pedigreed — Gates Foundation, Knight Foundation, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, and the Soros Open Society Foundation. Sounds to me like too much spare cash looking for something to do.
This project reminds me of the Hewlett Foundation’s Nonprofit Marketplace Initiative, a $12 million investment with the goal of increasing giving by providing rational, factual information to nonprofit donors. As The Agitator reported here, Hewlett pulled the plug after eight years, conceding that emotion carried the day! Another DUH!
Hopefully, early in the process someone will point the Participation Index team to: 1) years of very instructive experience testing direct response TV commercials (see our posts here and here with lessons from the peerless Russ Reid Company); and 2) the now heaps and heaps of academic literature on the mental process and overt and covert cues that move individuals to act or react (start here with Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow).
If there’s good news here, it’s that at least: “The methodologies being used for the index will be provided on an open-source basis to those who are interested — whether on the left or right or in the center of the ideological spectrum.”
But I’m not holding my breath. Am I too jaded?
Tell me, if you had the ear of Gates, Soros, et al, how would you like to see them invest in making fundraising and ‘call to action’ communications more effective?
Tom
3 responses to “Thank God For These Studies!”
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
Oh, Tom. Thank you thank you. I read the “sense of belonging piece.” For heavens’ sake… an economist from Yale, as I recall. (Speaking of Yale economists, have you read Dan Ariely’s work. Now that’s some good stuff. But I digress, too!) I thought maybe I was just too tired to see the insights from the belonging article. I even gave it to my Tom to read. I’m sooooooo pleased that you thought it was ??? like I did.
Now, I must admit that I was hopeful about the other article … the activist article. (Yes, I agree that giving money is one form of activism. But we also need a whole lot more marching and protesting, etc. And not just the online ranting. We need demonstrations that we can see on TV, etc. Anyway…)
Obviously I need to read Thinking, Fast and Slow. And it’s on my shelf. Moving to the top!
And finally!!!!! The investment to see if providing rational info — those facts! — would raise more money. You really want to get angry, read Eric Friedman’s book Reinventing Philanthropy: A Framework for More Effective Giving. He cares so much. The concepts are so bad. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Only Ahern and Joyaux had written negative ones. And other big important people wrote positive ones. Oh my.
Ok. Enough ranting. Clients are calling. Thank you always.
How about the study that to get a million dollar gift you have to ask someone who has a million dollars!
I loved the first article. My boss read it, and said “wow.” I think it is valuable for people who are not professional fundraisers, but manage fundraisers–like EDs and Board members. Makes it a bit easier. Also, we are starting a Benefit Corporation, so it was nice for that reason as well. I looked for articles on Benefit Corps on The Agitator by the way. Didn’t see any…. Any wisdom on that topic?