Unlearn What You Have Learned, You Must
Syntax is the way we place words in a sentence. The simplest, clearest formulation is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), “The dog chased the cat”.
Yoda uses a very complicated, awkward syntax called an anastrophe, placing the object and the verb before the subject. Simple is better, right? Use active voice, not passive, right?
Every rule ever written has exceptions or will if it doesn’t yet. Humans are messy, what works is messy. Many phenomena in life follow an inverted U-shaped pattern. It’s the Goldilocks phenomenon, too little or too much is bad but there’s a sweet spot.
Happiness over time, stress, exercise, self-esteem, sleep – they all follow this pattern.
Complicated syntax is associated with dense, hard to read prose. Think academic abstract. It’s a negative feature of our Readability score that correlates with response rate.
But, is it always bad? Cognitive effort can also follow an inverted U pattern. We do tend to be cognitive misers, especially when it’s a low salience, passive activity like reading a fundraising appeal. But a hint of italicizing that makes me put in a tad more effort can increase my attention.
Might the same be true for slightly novel, slightly more complicated syntax? Why would this work? Call it a syntax surprise. I automatically process words that appear in the order my experience tells me they should. Interrupt this and it can create an element of surprise that has me paying just a tad more attention.
Consider these sentences,
- Donate today and join fellow conservationists
- Join fellow conservationists, donate today
They’re both grammatically correct but the first one is the more common, expected formulation. Here are the Goldilocks, inverted U shape findings from Atalay et al. in the Journal of Marketing. Notice the sweet spot of 2ish for syntactic surprise level.
I’d recommend trying this for subject or headline email and ad testing respectively.
What’s that you ask? How the hell do you know your syntax surprise score? The kind researchers have obliged, there’s a free calculator here, Syntactic Surprise Calculator (syntactic-surprise-calculator.com).
Kevin
5 responses to “Unlearn What You Have Learned, You Must”
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
This comes from an old 70’s book. You must learn to learn, unlearn and re learn
I A common phenomena when dealing with novel material of any sort. Metacognition. You look at something, decide it is easy and don’t invest much energy in learning from it, and don’t really learn much. You look at something and decide it is too hard, and bag it. You look at something and think, I am going to have to invest some energy in understanding this and you learn more than the other two scenarios.
Yep, the goldilocks principle of effort – too easy and it’s boring and I ignore, too hard and I don’t try or quit too soon.
I am a bit confused. Am I correct that we should be striving for the 2ish range or the optimal (which are disjointed)? I don’t understand the optimal vs effective – why the difference?
Chuck, yep, aim for 2(ish). The shades of green are noisy in my view and wouldn’t overinterpret optimal being materially different.