Which Test Won?
I get a feed that presents nothing but various direct marketing tests, almost always from the commercial space.
It’s called Which Test Won? You don’t need to add it to your in-box; I’ll watch it for you.
Finally, the other day they put up a test involving a nonprofit, in this case Oxfam UK.
It was a simple test of a ‘Donate’ button intended for mobile visitors. And a cool feature is that you get to vote on which alternative won, see how many of you and your fellow pundits were right, and get WTW’s full explanantion of the test and their assessment of why the winner won.
As I said, I’m happy to do all this on your behalf; I know how busy you are.
In the test of the Donate button, Version A allowed the viewer to select their type of donation (with “Monthy Donation” as the default, which seriously impressed me … Go Oxfam!) and the amount … all within the button. Version B simply offered a Donate button, which would bounce you to these options.
Seemed like a no-brainer to me … Version A — the simpler, one-step button should win. And it did. It lifted donation click throughs 23% compared to the simple “Donate Now” button.
In the grand scheme of things, not a major advance of fundraising strategy (keep working on your retention program). Just a good example of honing your basic tactics.
Good on ya Oxfam.
Tom
2 responses to “Which Test Won?”
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
The simple changes are always the best…
i would be interested in knowing the demographics of who is giving via mobile. In the healthcare space and based on extensive testing, we do not mail to any patient <60 years of age. Therefore, the audience is Boomers who continue to give via offline w/the first gift. They are "bi-channel" on the second gift.
Thanks