The life of a direct response fundraiser is filled with so many questions – far more questions than answers.

Take the question, “How much should we ask for?”

Usually the question is answered with the conventional application of a formula based on previous giving.  For example, 1.0X, 1.5X, 2.0X highest previous gift –or some variation thereof.

Why?  “Well, because that’s the way we’ve always done it?” …” Because that’s what others do.” … and occasionally –very occasionally— “Because that’s what our testing shows.”

Few elements of direct response fundraising are as neglected as the crucial “ask string”—often at the cost of thousands or hundreds of thousands of $.

And for good reason.  This a neglected and somewhat fraught subject. There’s prior transactional behavior involved (RFM) …there’s behavioral science involved (anchoring, social proof, set completion) …and sometimes just plain absence of reliable data.

Believe me, in my career I’ve been as unsure, mystified and without proven answers as any fundraiser alive when it comes to the ins and outs of ask strings.

That’s one of the reasons I keep a dog-eared copy of Nick’s The Science of Ask Strings a DonorVoice Whitepaper handy and urge you to download and put it to use as well.

In 27 fact-packed pages, Nick summarizes the scientific literature, shares testing results, and challenges the assumptions that generally run rampant in the trade.

Throwing Up My Hands

The other day I was reviewing returns from an organization who chose to use no default asking amount for its large group of $1000+ donors who receive 4 appeals a year.  As in “My gift in the amount of $____ is enclosed.”

The results from this self-selection gift amount were solid sticking to the $1000+ gift range.

I called Nick to ask what he had in his ball of string on “self-selected asking amounts”.  Here’s his response:

“Best study I’ve seen is a NextAfter  test of this with Harvest Ministries online. They tested a lower ask string versus a higher ask string for their default donation page on their site. As almost an afterthought, they also tested eliminating the ask string altogether and simply letting the potential donor choose. This then went out in an email that coordinated with the online form (low ask, high ask, and no ask string).

“The goal of setting ask string defaults is to guess as close to the maximum amount that a person would be willing to give. When your guess is below that, you may leave money on the table; ask more and the models show you will lower response rate. Thus, letting someone choose their own gift may help them pick the right gift for them.”

So… more testing needed.  Any Agitator readers have experience with the self-selection asking technique?

Setting Defaults

While you ponder “self-selection” here’s a summary of setting asking amount defaults from Nick’s  The Science of Ask Strings

With online ask strings, there is the opportunity to set a default — that is, what radio button amount will be automatically set, if the user were to make no changes?

In print, this can be accomplished with social proof (e.g., “most people give X”) or by circling a desired amount.

Do these defaults help?  Evidence indicates that they do, by increasing revenue.

Specifically, social proof can be a powerful default. One study by Jen Shang and Rachel Croson used callers to a public broadcasting pledge drive. When people called in, they were informed that a previous donor had given $75, $180, or $300. Citing a $300 donation increased renewing members’ donations by 29% on average. The study also looked at social information in both mail and phone for renewing members.

When a person was given information that someone had given a larger donation, their gift increased by more than $12. When they received information that someone had given a smaller donation than their previous gift, their gift decreased by $24. (Equal information increased by $5).

In point of fact, another study indicated the closer the in-group is (e.g., “most Wisconsites give X” versus “most people give X”), the more powerful the social proof is.

Looking at the $300 donation study again, the researchers replicated this, but changed the sex of the other donor either to match or mismatch with the caller. When the gender of the person who gave the previous gift matched the caller, there was a 34 percent increase in giving compared with a mismatched sex for the alleged other giver.

And a test presented by M+R at the 2013 Blackbaud Conference found that adding “Most PETA supporters give at this level” to an ask string increased revenues by 25%. This, of course, only works for PETA — you’d want to swap in the name of your own organization and test for yourself.

Take care with this tactic, though. Evidence shows that while social proof can help significantly increase donations from lapsed donors, it also significantly lowers response rate.  Since the focus with lapsed donors is usually to bring them back into the organization (although your goals may vary), you may not want to take this approach.

Non-social defaults can also help. This seemed to be especially true among older donors, more frequent don0rs, and previous-year donors. Specifically, researchers found that a low bar, as with the “even a penny will help” approach, helped significantly increase donations.

It should also be noted that recent evidence suggests that if someone has a positive experience with a default, they will tend to default more and more.  While not specific to the nonprofit context, you can see how this would happen — if the default on your Web page is $50, donors who donate more than once could get stuck at that ask amount over time.

So many questions.  So many answers.  Download Nick’s Asking Strings paper start testing, and please share your insights with us.

Roger

As the Agitator sees it…

,,,asking properly is crucially important, as our mum taught us long, long ago. Not only was Mum correct, but we’ve learned even more since then.  Here you’ll find posts on frequency, ask strings and the use of behavioural science to boost results.

The life of a fundraiser is filled with so many questions – far more questions than answers.  Take the question, “How much should we ask for?” Usually the question is answered with a conventional application with the retort when questioned, “Because that’s what others do.”, or “That’s what we’ve always done.

In this post you’ll find winning alternatives and additional links –including links for digital advice.  Plus you’ll want to download the free white paper The Science of Ask Strings.

The Opposite of “More” is Not “Less”; It’s “Better”  For generations fundraisers have been steering the fundraising car with no more than two controls: the gas pedal and the brake pedal.  But…there are so many more alternatives than asking for more, or asking for less.  This post will open your eyes to new, and more profitable, opportunities.

Three Off Ramps from the Volume Hamster Wheel.

A perennial donor complaint is “I get too much mail”…or, “I get asked to much.”   There are valuable alternative so simply sending more and more asks.  Alternatives that actually increase revenue and donor value.  They’re explored here.

You Raise More Money When You Listen to Donor Preferences.  Learning about and honoring donors’ preferences is fundraising gold.  This post explains why and also provides guidance on the “restricted” vs “unrestricted” gift dilemma.