Your Brain On Email
Roger’s been touting neuroscience lately and the application of what we know about how the brain processes stuff to produce sounder marketing/fundraising.
Here’s an example of ‘Neuromarketing 101’ I recently came across.
I commend this useful compilation of effective email marketing approaches based on neuroscience principles, put together by Emma, a pretty slick email marketing firm Emma (hey, Charity:Water gives them a rave).
In fact, I’m about to test one of these — Temptation Coupling — myself for a magazine I publish.
Here are the principles illustrated:
1. Trivialization Effect — try a simple thank you instead
2. Choice Paradox — don’t confuse the matter
3. Reciprocity — give and get
4. Motivating-Uncertainty Effect — a hint of mystery can intrigue
5. Temptation Coupling — sounds sinful, but in simple terms, a bonus
6. Ben Franklin Effect — asking for favors
7. Baader-Meinhoff Phenomenon — didn’t I just see that?
8. Framing Effect — positive framing is more persuasive
9. Scarcity — fear of missing out (often over-used)
10. Loss Aversion — people would rather avoid loss than gain something
11. Unconscious Processing — securing commitment to small action provides foothold
Without further explanation, how many of these principles are you familiar with? And how many do you actually use? My guess is choice paradox, reciprocity, framing and scarcity.
Go ahead, download the guide and broaden your email marketing palette.
Tom
P.S. Truth be told, these principles will work in any marketing channel … no surprise to you direct mailers.
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