The Anatomy & Science of Conversation
Conversation abounds in the world of fundraising whether in-person or over the phone. Everybody makes note that we should be active listeners and strive for making a conversation, well, you know, “conversational”. That feels thin.
The social science world has done a lot to get a more robust answer. This has implications for humans talking to humans but is of equal import for automated, AI bots that we’ve all experienced in customer service world on a website.
For starters, conversations are positive. I’ve come across many charities that refuse to consider telefundraising or are opposed to canvassing. These are often prejudicial, subjective biases. As proof, research shows we humans consistently underrate the enjoyment a stranger gets from having a conversation with us. If I wrongly believe a stranger won’t enjoy a conversation with me then I’m doubly convinced and doubly wrong they won’t enjoy a conversation with someone else.
It’s true some TM and F2F shops will create guilt induced, pressurizing experiences. That’s an indictment on the shops, not the power of conversation.
The chart above shows mood before and after a conversation. It’s a big, positive shift in mood after conversations and age makes no difference. I imagine a direct mail letter or email or social post having a hard time consistently creating this level of positive mood shift.
Not all conversations are created equal. What are the features of a good vs. bad conversationalist?
The blue marks are good conversationalists and they talk,
- Slightly faster (about .1 word per second faster)
- With greater variation in their loudness
- With more intensity
- With more novelty to the conversation when warranted but staying on topic as needed too
- With more behavioral cues of head nodding and smiling
Kevin
4 responses to “The Anatomy & Science of Conversation”
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
Bob at the Bristol is a largely attended conversation, I have with two random people at the restaurant and Bar. Starts at about 530 or 6. Sometimes we will have 3 couples who over three hours converse with me about Kansas City, their hometowns, sports, politics (politely), family, no family, lost relative. People clamor to be a part of the project started as we were in the early coming out of Covid.
Based on the guest, not me, because I have traveled the world, know KC, have a basic curiosity, empathy, sympathy, (Masters in Counseling). Using all those skills that I have used for decades in Major Gift Fundraising, you know when a conversation is going well. The routine is because guests have suggested this needs to be regular. One who had lost his mother, his classmate told me how much he appreciated my distraction, recently a group of five women before an event, I was sitting next to the youngest who was finishing a teaching program, but didn’t want to teach. We worked it through. a fella came up to me afterwards asking how did one guy keep 5 women entertained for an hour and a half. Listening is a trite word, I prefer curiosity. I have met people who explained Boise’s blue carpet, why Fort Worth has a Will Rogers Museum, emotional break ups, whether to have children or not is more popular than I would expect. I am sure some were bored, there is no penalty for leaving the group, no mocking of people other than me.
Come by some Thursday night with Bob at the Bristol.
[…] The Agitator gets into The Anatomy & Science of Conversation. […]
[…] The Agitator gets into The Anatomy & Science of Conversation. […]
[…] The Agitator gets into The Anatomy & Science of Conversation. […]