“There is obviously hope for us all …”
That’s the message of my favorite Tweet this week. It’s from @AdrianSargeant and attached to it is this marvelous piece of correspondence.
Not only is it evidence of Adrian’s point that there’s hope for us all, it’s equally a reminder of the danger that springs from believing the safest course of action lies in sticking with the status quo.
Have a good, but restless weekend.
Roger
5 responses to ““There is obviously hope for us all …””
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
A slightly more contemporary example is Dr. Sackett, generally considered the “father of evidence based” medicine who famously said,
“Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own.”
He intentionally made a wild, exaggerated estimate to make a point though there is some evidence he wasn’t that far off.
By contrast, how long have some of the fundraising ‘facts’ been around?
1) people give because we ask (grossly oversimplifies what is really going on, is at least as wrong as it is right and has created the volume mess)
2) ask string formula based on MRC, HPC…whatever
3) that demographics matter to understand root cause
4) that ‘best practice’ is a defined as a set of items (e.g. newsletter, thank you call, thank you letter) instead of root cause needs
5) that we can be successful without knowing anything about the folks giving (ok, cheated there, nobody says this, I don’t think, but it is how the sector operates)
The good news, as Lincoln correctly noted, the future is now, it just isn’t evenly distributed. There are ‘unicorn’ charities out there doing business differently, discovering new facts with new evidence and a constant mindset of inquiry and questioning status quo.
Maybe I missed that this was supposed to be a spoof, and not trying to embarrass anyone, but I think this is not a real letter: http://www.snopes.com/einstein-rejection-letter/
Fake letter, for a lot of reasons
You’re absolutely right Chip. As you note, this is indeed a fake letter as indicated http://www.snopes.com/einstein-rejection-letter/. My point in running it is genuine — too many of us stick rigidly with the status quo, accepting “best practices” and conventional wisdom while rejecting new thinking and evidence that challenges convention.
A letter in English from a Swiss University to a Swiss applicant???