Thank You For Real Data On Thank You’s
Hallelujah! Actual test data on the efficacy of thank you’s.
In case you’ve haven’t noticed, here’s is a bit of testing information just posted on The Agitator website by Angel Aloma at Food For The Poor …
“Thank you letters have been very effective fundraisers for our organization. On average, we get more than one fifth of our net income from direct mail from our thank you letters. We pay a lot of attention to the quality and strength of the letters and we make sure that they are tremendously donor centric. We do not include any ask in the letter, but we do include an envelope and a reply piece.
Amongst our highest donors, we tested two groups of 25,000 each. At the beginning of the year we sent a very sincere, simple thank you card to 25,000 for their past generosity – no ask, no reply piece, no envelope. The other group did not receive this. Both groups gave almost identical numbers of gifts that year, but the group that received the thank you gave almost $450,000 more for that year.”
Thank you for that, Angel. You get an Agitator raise!
Tom
One response to “Thank You For Real Data On Thank You’s”
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
We garner a response rate average of 14% for one of our clients (a mission/social service agency) using a what I guess is a soft ask at best. It’s just a highly personalized letter. On the back of the letterhead we pre-print a pledge to donors and partners that reinforces the mission of the organization and shows financial transparency and accountability. We include a mail-back reply that is very unassuming but includes the words “return with your next gift”.
I believe about 13% of their NET revenue comes from this ongoing effort.
Thanks for these posts and comments. Although their list is small, we should probably try to test some different letters. We happen to have a handwriting robot that has about a dozen handwriting styles and holds a real pen to address letters and envelopes. Maybe we’ll try that.