The Psychology Of Action
However imaginative your fundraising tactics might be, beyond your most committed cadre of donors, you still face resistance to giving.
Here, courtesy of Marketing Profs, are five psychological principles to consider that might help you understand and overcome that resistance.
#1: Pain Avoidance. My favorite. The principle to take into account is that the psychological fear of losing something is a much stronger motivator than the potential to gain or improve something.
What’s to lose? Threatened species, basic rights like free speech, health, economic security, lives. Most fundraisers are pretty good at illustrating ‘loss’.
#2: Status Quo Bias. Inertia. Most people prefer to remain stationary, even if they profess to be open to new ideas or paths. Try using #1: “If you sit on your hands, here’s what you’ll lose!”
#3: Reciprocity. People feel indebted to someone who does something for them, especially if done without asking for anything in return. In crudest form: free stickers. But try excellent customer/donor service if you want to up the ante.
#4: Social Proof. Forget individuality, we’re herd animals at our core. We want to be accepted and we feel greater compulsion to act when we see others like us taking action. For example, testimonials from other donors, Facebook ‘Likes’, even giving ‘thermometers’.
#5: Scarcity. We feel more compelled to act when we fear something is scarce … like limited passes to Hillary Clinton’s pre-speech reception. I think this is a tough one for fundraisers to use … can there ever be too many donors?! The ticking ‘time clocks’ on matching gifts might be a rough surrogate for creating a sense of ‘act now or lose out’.
What these principles all boil down to is one thing: giving is about emotion.
Do your fundraising messages consistently recognize and reflect that?
Tom
3 responses to “The Psychology Of Action”
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
Fear may bring them in, but only love will make them stay.
I have always wondered about the impact of #1 on retention/lifetime donor value. As Dr. Mary says, you can get them on board with a “give now or the dog dies” appeal, but if that’s what they get month after month, will they stay? Giving is an emotional decision, it’s true, but if your donors know every time they open your email or mail piece they’re going to feel anxiety/outrage/fear, will they keep opening it? I have no healthy relationships that are based on fear or guilt, do you?
If anyone’s aware of a study to show how this type of messaging impacts long-term donor value I’d love to hear about it. I think fear-based messaging is something that needs to be used judiciously. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but only by actual facts.
I think fear can continue to work – especially if the donor is helping with a problem that will take time to solve. So in Cathe’s example, there are many more dogs in danger. And the donor who is moved by one dog’s story is likely to be moved by another’s. BUT… what has to happen is the donor needs to get the love, too. She needs to know she saved the dog. She needs to know how grateful the organization – and the dog, maybe the dog’s new owners – is for her help.
I think fear’s definitely got a short shelf-life if ALL the donor gets are threats of doom. But let them feel like the heroes who saved the day? That’s pretty irresistible!