When Might a Losing Test Win?
Did These Ads Win? No Peeking.
If you had to guess, did either of these test ads beat the control?
Neither did.
At least, that’s the case if you assume everyone is the same and run a random nth test—which is 99% of all tests.
Okay, how about this one? Same question—go ahead and peek this time if you want…
Still lost.
Or did they?
The Trick Question
These ads only “won” when matched with the right personality type.
- Test 1 was designed for extroverts.
- Test 2 was designed for introverts.
If you lump everyone together in analysis, like all random nth test designs do, you get a false negative—both tests fail against the control.
But when you assume people are motivated by different things—and that the best way to get someone to act is to match the message to their orientation and values—you see the real results:
✅ The introverted test beat the control among introverts.
✅ The extroverted test beat the control among extroverts.
Personalized Matching Is the Baseline, Not the Future
- This isn’t a gimmick.
- It’s not a “next step” after “getting the basics right.” It is the basic.
- And it’s not just for big charities.
- And it doesn’t require extra time or budget.
You’re already investing time and resources into crafting appeals. The difference? Personalization is built into the process—not added on.
It’s paint by numbers: better results, less wasted effort. Win-win.
Kevin
P.S. You can do this for $0.15 per record with cheat sheets for each trait to know what words, tone, images and design to use. And you can have a GPT trained on copywriting for Big Five traits to do first drafts. For more info reply in comments or email me directly at kschulman@thedonorvoice.com
Behavioral Science Q & A
Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]
Read Full Answer
The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]
Read Full Answer
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