Using Cancer
Let me say at the outset that The Agitator is a HUGE fan of the MobileCause blog.
In my view, the advent and use of smartphones will turn out to be as important to fundraising as the advent of the postage stamp. [Go ahead, dispute that one Agitator readers!]. And MobileCause is normally very astute on the subject of mobile fundraising.
But today I received an email from MobileCause that disturbed me. Its subject line:
U.S. Breast Cancer On the Rise and How to Increase Fundraising Now
Then, after a short intro …
The Benefits of Mobile Fundraising for Cancer
The email/blog post went on to explain how, in the face the dramatic increase in US breast cancer cases, “Crowdfunding and mobile fundraising may be a lifesaver”.
What followed was a pitch for the (admitted) benefits of mobile fundraising. Of course, those benefits would apply to fundraising for any cause or charity.
Fundraisers often get accused of ‘ambulance chasing’.
But I’ve never thought the victims of natural or ecological disasters or human rights abuses have regretted that concerned nonprofits and charities ‘jumped on’ those situations to raise funds (assuming, of course, that those funds were used for the declared purpose).
Nor would I object to a case study that illustrated how effective fundraising tactics yielded impressive results for a given need or campaign.
But somehow this MobileCause blog post rubbed me the wrong way. This is not a cause making a fundraising appeal. This is vendor selling a service … using cancer.
Tell me, am I getting too sensitive in my old age?
Tom
P.S. After the pitch, the MobilCause author went on to provide several paragraphs of information about breast cancer and the rise in rates. I almost backed off my criticism. But then came the final close: “Find me on Twitter and reach out anytime. I love talking about this stuff!” Which “stuff” — breast cancer or using breast cancer?
P.P.S. Yes, I’m bothered, but I’ll treat this as a lapse in judgment. I can’t afford NOT to pay attention to MobilCause’s usually astute advice.
3 responses to “Using Cancer”
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
Tom,
I had a really visceral reaction to this post. First all, are breast cancer rates really on the rise? Having worked in legitimate cancer research and care organizations for nearly 10 years, I am skeptical about this statistic. What are they counting? New diagnoses in 2014? Deaths? Where? In the US, worldwide, in Jersey City? So many disreputable people take advantage of the knee jerk fear reaction related to cancer to get money. And this company is doing just that. When irresponsible, or worse unethical, people and organizations take advantage of “the cancer problem” they create a terrible image problem for legitimate organizations. This is the kind of marketing that makes the wider fundraising industry look bad too. You may call this a lapse, but I think this is more egregious than that. Someone needs to call them on their poor judgment.
I had the same thought Fern did: What precipitous rise in breast cancer? I worked for the American Cancer Society, and they don’t mention any such dramatic increase on cancer.org.
You know, women used to be so frightend of a breast cancer diagnosis, that they didn’t even speak of it to their families. There are still women in some cultures who keep quiet about a lump because they’re embarassed by it–they think it’s their fault, and that it’s a death sentence.
Fear-mongering is fear-mongering, no matter who it’s aimed at, and MobilCause ought to be ashamed.
First, let me tell you about the lens through which I read this post. I’m a cancer survivor and a fundraising professional.
Okay, now, let me tell you what I think. I thought the MobileCause blog post was a bit dopey (and, perhaps, misleading). It was also inelegantly written as you point out. Nevertheless, I wasn’t particularly offended. I get what MobileCause was attempting to do. I think it’s a miss.
While I can’t control what others say or do, I can control how I choose to react. For this one, I simply choose to shake my head and move on. I have bigger concerns.