What’s Not To ‘Like’?
With all the ‘Like’-ing happening on Facebook — 93% of Facebook users engage in some form of “Like” behaviour — it’s good to see some effort made to determine what it actually means.
As reported by the Center for Media Research, a recent study from Exact Target indicates we shouldn’t hyper-ventilate over Likes. They’re actually pretty casual, especially when it comes to brands.
CMR cites these study conclusions:
- “Like” is deceptively simple and infinitely complex, with subtle variations in meaning that are highly dependent on context and the individual user
- “Like” is a form of self-expression, especially among younger consumers, with ties to the right brands to earn “cool points” among their peers
- Many consumers want some tangible benefit in exchange for their “Like.” This may be in the form of deals, discounts, or exclusive information.
- “Like” is ambiguous. From the consumer perspective, it’s often unclear what they’re committing to with their “Like.”
- “Like” is light-hearted. Brands shouldn’t read too much into a “Like.” It’s casual and fun-and users expect casual, fun posts in return.
This last point is perhaps the most important take-away, concludes the report. “As a public declaration of brand affinity, “Like” is relatively lightweight and not an endorsement.”
The study notes that only 42% of active Facebook users agree that marketers should interpret “Like” to mean they are a fan or advocate of the company. And CMR observes: “‘Like’ does not equate to permission for one-to-one marketing. Instead, it represents consent to receive broadcast marketing messages, while leaving the door open (or at least unlocked) for taking the relationship further.”
So fundraisers, don’t come on too strong to those who merely ‘Like’ you!
Tom
P.S. You can register and download the study here.
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