Words Are Precision Tools
Roger might have overwhelmed you with numbers and analysis in his recent two detailed posts on acquisition and lifetime value, here and here.
I’ll grossly oversimplify what he established with the numbers.
It boils down to embracing this mindset: Treat a first-time giver as a lead, not a donor. If you then deal with these folks as leads, you’re more likely to handle them with the care and attention they deserve. They, in turn, will be more likely to give again … then you can begin to call them donors. A relationship is beginning.
But, as Ken Burnett, argues in this rant, don’t then get lazy and screw up the relationship with lousy words!
Complaining of a recent ‘personalized’ appeal he received:
“…having sucked up to me with transparent nonsense and sprayed around entirely gratuitous thanks and congratulations, the writer went on, clumsily, to ask me for even more money.”
What did you really think of this letter, Ken?! He continues:
“We have to get better at what we say when we write to donors. A lot better. If this were a rare and singular exception I’d have let it go. It isn’t. We all know it isn’t.
So, fundraisers, must try harder. Perhaps if we did we might start to reverse the appalling attrition statistics that plague our industry and all its endeavours.
The thing is, words are precision tools each with distinct, specific meanings. They should be assembled together with care and consideration, not gummed in strips as if interchangeable or sprayed around with seeming abandon regardless of their combined effect.”
Amen.
Tom
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