Your Beneficiary is Too Far Away to Help
If I show you a beautiful, scenic picture from 5 feet away you will appreciate and feel it more than if I show it to you 50 feet away.
We humans apply this same logic to charitable giving, assuming more impact on nearby vs. faraway beneficiaries is physical and social distance and they operate independently.
Meaning, if you show me a picture of my own child in need (maximally close socially) I’ll assume my $20 will help her more if she is in Virginia where I live versus California.
Our bias for closer = more impact comes partly from our language. For example, the phrase “the people closest to the CEO” means those people with the biggest effect on CEO decisions.
This is why there is a correlation between proximity to one’s alma mater and giving (after controlling for age, income, graduation year, type of degree, prior giving, etc.). One can influence this natural correlation by describing the University (or any beneficiary) as being nearby and increase giving.
But what if your beneficiary can’t be reasonably described as nearby?
- If you include copy talking about globalization and shrinking distances versus the long, arduous process of delivering supplies you can shorten perceived distance and increase giving.
- You can also use visual cues to suggest closeness. For example, a horizontal arrow or similar visual showing a left to right orientation between the donor and Distant Place X (e.g. your money goes here with an arrow in between) can reduce perceived distance. Using a vertical arrow with Distant Place X on the bottom has the opposite effect.
- Roll with the bias. Instead of asking people to help others, ask them to show support. This changes the mental consideration to match the bias.
Kevin
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