Fundraising Tip: Aim for the Heart, Not the Head
Behavior Research Confirms: Donors Don’t Care About Your Facts and Figures
A more fun headline for this article might be this:
Research confirms that donors don’t care about research.
An article in The Guardian examines several research studies of donor behavior and concludes that donors respond to stories much more than facts and figures, no matter how compelling an intellectual case they make.
You may already know that, but you may not know the reasons why. The donor behavior research referenced in the Guardian attempts to answer that question. But before we get to the research, let’s start with a story (see how I did that?).
Baby Jessica
In 1987, a girl who became known to the world as ‘Baby Jessica’ fell down a well and was trapped there for 60 hours. It made national news. Even before the internet and cell phones, somehow everyone found out about it (imagine that…).
The well wasn’t an ordinary well either. It was more like a narrow pipe – just 8 inches wide and 22 feet deep. At just 18 months old, Jessica would have died within a short time. Confused, in the dark, alone, she eventually fell asleep and probably wouldn’t have woken up if she hadn’t been rescued when she was. Today, she still has scars and other reminders of her ordeal, though she herself doesn’t remember it.
Rescuers couldn’t pull her out of the pipe because it was too narrow. They had to dig a parallel shaft next to it, open up the pipe Jessica was trapped in, and pull her to safety.
During those tense days, over $700,000 in donations poured in to help Jessica’s rescuers. Unsolicited.
In terms of donor behavior, Jessica’s story demonstrates the Principle of Immediacy. Her need was immediate. And donors gave without even being asked to meet that need. But her story teaches more than that. I’ll use her story to help contextualize each of the following research-based findings about donor behavior.
Also see: The Anatomy of a Fundraising Story
Want to Send Donors Fleeing? Tell Them How Great Your Programs Work
One donor behavior research study partnered with Freedom from Hunger in a direct mail test sent out to prior donors. They sent two waves of about 17,000 direct mail appeals. The control featured a basic appeal with a story about one of their beneficiaries. In other words, the kind of fundraising appeal that seems to work well.
The new appeal included an extra paragraph at the end of the letter that explained true scientific research demonstrating the effectiveness of their programs.
So what happened?
The version that included the research data produced lower average gift amounts and fewer gifts. People gave less money when they were given more information. The one exception was that, among larger donors (defined here as having given over $100), donation amounts increased their average gift by $12.98. But because the smaller donors gave less, the overall result came out about the same.
As the researchers put it, “Presenting positive information about charitable effectiveness increases the likelihood of giving … for large prior donors, but turned off small prior donors.”
So the research seems to have reassured larger donors that their money was being well-used. But it drove down response from smaller donors.
Interestingly, when people complain that fundraising letters are “too long,” this research suggests the parts you can safely cut out if you want to shorten your letters without hurting results. This test saw no measurable difference in overall giving by leaving out the research data.
Another takeaway suggests that smart segmenting might mean including a little extra evidence of effectiveness in your fundraising letters to larger donors.
But overall, the message is clear. Talking yourself up talks donors out of giving.
Baby Jessica’s Take?
Jessica’s donors didn’t need any research or data to give. They didn’t even need to be asked. They just saw the story, perceived a clear and present need they could meet, and sent money to help. They did the work of figuring out who to send it to (again – before the internet, before crowdfunding…). They were undeterred by obstacles, determined to help.
Charity Ratings: They Feel So Good, but Mean Absolutely Nothing
Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
Donor behavior research has explored the effects of charity ratings on donations. This UK site reports on two studies exploring this idea.
The first study was very simple. They worked with several charities that had earned 3 or 4-star ratings (out of 4) from Charity Navigator. In their fundraising appeals test, half of donors were shown the ratings. The other half were not.
The result?
No meaningful difference in donor behavior was observed. Nothing.
Another study was more rigorous. It tested a larger number of US donors being sent fundraising letters from charities with ranges of Charity Navigator ratings. As in the other study, half of donors were shown the charity’s rating, and the other half saw nothing.
In this study, they actually observed a loss of donations among the people who were shown the ratings. Charities with lower ratings saw reduced donations. Charities with higher ratings saw no changes, as in the study above.
Bottom line: It made no difference.
So your nonprofit can be proud of your 4-star rating if you want. It does mean something. But not to donors.
Again, this is a head/heart thing.
In our heads, intellectually, we appreciate that a nonprofit we want to donate to has a high rating. But no one gives to a nonprofit for this reason. Donors give to meet needs.
Baby Jessica’s Take?
Imagine if the rescuers helping Baby Jessica had broadcasted their years of experience, testimonials from other kids they’d rescued, ratings from government agencies, and their Better Business Bureau grade.
Would more people have sent money?
According to both of these studies, the answer is simple.
Nope.
Donors Give to People, not Groups
Another study of donor behavior found that people prefer to help ‘identifiable victims’ rather than ‘statistical victims’. These are their terms, not mine (as if you couldn’t tell….)
Baby Jessica was an identifiable victim. In other words, you could see her picture, understand her problem, see the solution as attainable, and know your giving had made a difference.
In contrast, giving to help solve world hunger, or to rescue kids from domestic violence, is a lot harder to motivate because the ‘victims’ are statistical. We know hunger and domestic violence are problems. In our heads, we understand this. In our hearts, we might feel bad about it and perhaps even want to help. But if a nonprofit asks us to help, we probably won’t, because what will my little $20 do for these huge problems?
Furthermore, the researchers point out that Jessica’s tragedy has already happened. There is no issue of credibility. We know who and what is causing her suffering. It’s the pipe. And we know how to fix it.
Or, in more appropriate terms, we know the enemy, and we can rescue her from it.
This is how donors think.
In contrast, if someone asks me to donate to fight world hunger, I don’t really know who the enemy is. Is it global corporations? Corrupt governments? Inadequate infrastructure? Droughts? Did a butterfly flap its wings in South America and cause a hurricane in the Atlantic?
We know hunger is real. But we don’t know who to blame for it. If we give to an organization fighting hunger that doesn’t utilize effective fundraising language, we are giving to the idea of solving hunger, imagining all these ‘statistical victims’ out there suffering from hunger. But we don’t see the impact.
Another finding from this study centered on total versus partial impact.
If I can help send an entire village’s children to school for the first time, I want to help. But if I’m only helping 10 kids out of a whole city attend school, I’m less inclined to help. (Note: If it’s a small village, there may only be 10 kids living in it – that’s why it’s partly about how you frame this for donors. I still feel better helping a whole village versus just 10 kids).
Baby Jessica’s Take?
In Baby Jessica’s case, she is the only person in her category. No one else is trapped in a well. So if we solve this problem, we have solved the entire problem.
Get that?
People got upset when wealthy donors gave huge sums to help rebuild the burned Notre Dame in France. “Why are you giving so much money to this, but not to help the poor?”, they wondered. The answer is the same as Jessica.
When we rebuild the museum, we have solved the entire problem. It’s done. Even wealthy donors say to themselves, “I don’t know how to solve poverty, but I can do something about this.”
This is how we talk about impact. And this is why stories work so well.
By sharing just one story of a kid suffering from hunger or domestic violence, I as the donor want to help that kid. I’m not solving the entire problem. But I am solving the entire problem for that kid. It feels the same as helping Baby Jessica.
And that’s why the direct mail test for Freedom from Hunger got its results. Donors wanted to help the person featured in the control letter. They didn’t care what research said about how effective the program was.
Put All This Together
Here are the key fundraising takeaways from the three donor behavior studies discussed above:
- – Confine your fundraising appeals to specific beneficiaries, not groups
- – Present a clear opposition, or enemy, preventing needs from being met
- – Don’t waste time or space in your fundraising on charity ratings
- – Leave out evidence of how well your program works (except, maybe, for larger donors)
- – Make it clear that a problem is being solved if the person gives
Want more content? Get weekly nonprofit fundraising and copywriting tips, strategies, and motivations in the ProActive Insights newsletter.
