Unconscious (Dis)Trust
With his two (so far) in-depth articles on donor acquisition, Roger’s been laying on some heavy stuff to start off the new year. And he’s still ‘just’ talking about how to determine how much to spend (that is, invest) in acquisition and the concepts/metrics involved. See here and here.
Yet to come are subjects like — where/how might I find and engage new prospects, and what makes for a strong ask.
So a bit of relief from the heavy lifting today, courtesy of neuromarketer Roger Dooley.
You might think that the issue of trust somehow enters the prospective donor’s mind … and somewhat early in the consideration process — ‘Should I take the leap with this charity or nonprofit?’ What’s the first impression? And yet we probably assume that trust is something that builds over time, as the organization delivers performance and rewarding experiences.
Hang on, though, in this article, Unconscious Trust Formed in Milliseconds, this Roger talks about how little time it takes — 33 milliseconds to be precise — to make that critical first impression. Thanks to the lizard part of our brains (amygdalas).
His focus here is on faces and the first impressions — good or bad — they make. But note that he’s not just talking about real-time face-to-face encounters. He’s also looking at the faces you might use in your printed and digital/video communications.
His bottomline: “So, be sure that whatever your customer sees first supports the impression you want to form. Even a few seconds later may be too late.”
You might want to take a fresh look at the faces you use in your testimonials, for example!
A fascinating (and illustrated) read.
Tom
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