If people enjoy giving then why would they ever actively avoid a fundraising ask?
Being solicited and the joy that can arrive from being charitable are not synonymous. Heck, sometimes they aren’t even distant, far-flung cousins.
Relatedly, the act of giving is not what brings joy. It is how people react afterwards. We don’t give because we feel sad, we give in hopes of feeling not sad and ideally, feeling psychologically rewarded.
So it’s a three part act:
- Act One: Being solicited
- Act Two: Act of giving or not
- Act Three: How one feels as a result of choice in Act Two
But if Act One never happens because the person actively avoids being solicited then it’s a short play.
Think back to a December pre-Covid. Now recall a trip to the grocery store and the inevitable encounter with the Salvation Army bell-ringers. What did you do? Go in the door where they weren’t? Avoid eye contact? Or, maybe seek them out?
Regardless, this isn’t a foreign situation for anyone. Everybody knows what’s gonna happen; you’ll be asked to donate whether verbal and explicit or non-verbal and implied.
And by extension everyone has a behavior pattern from their personal past to lean on in these situations. Do people behave differently based on their priors? If I gave and had a pleasant exchange and felt good about it and I hadn’t given to the bell-ringer yet this year then I might be inclined to seek them out or at least not actively avoid them.
On the other hand, what if my prior experience wasn’t good? Or perhaps it was but I was just at the grocery store last week and already gave?
An experiment (Andreoni, Rao and Trachtman, 2011) was run in Boston outside of a grocery store with researchers on site to monitor foot traffic. It was a 2×2 design with 1 door or 2 having Salvation Army bell-ringers and actively asking versus not.
Giving was lowest with a bell ringer at only 1 of 2 doors and no verbal, active asking and highest at the other end of the continuum – ringers at both doors and both actively asking.
With subsequent analysis the researchers found that avoiders do not give even when they are unable to avoid. Said differently, there were plenty of folks who avoided saying no but when unable to avoid it, did so.
The more active asking ‘converts’ those who are not avoiding saying no but rather, avoiding having their empathetic response activated since they know they’ll either give or feel guilty for not doing so.
In another experiment with door to door canvassing it was found that the best outcome for the charity and the humans on the other side of the door was to,
- Pre-canvass by hanging door knockers on the residence alerting them to canvassing activity in the coming days
- Letting people leave the tag to opt-out of canvassing
A canvassing shift that hit a much higher percentage of doors where the person was at least willing to have a conversation would be a fantastic shift for the prospects and the canvassers. The goal is not door knocking. The goal is signing people up who will stick around and doing enough of it per shift to turn a profit for the agency and the charity.
All these interpersonal dynamics play out with passive, non-interpersonal fundraising – i.e. mail, email, digital of all sorts, etc. Returning to our 3-part play, there is huge efficiency in having people tell you they don’t want to be part of Act One.
Just because people haven’t indicated that doesn’t mean they want it or like it. How one asks influences Act Two but there are still plenty of people whose avoidance/non-response signals dis-interest.
- Act One: Being solicited
- Act Two: Act of giving or not
- Act Three: How one feels as a result of choice in Act Two
Donating is not the same as feeling good about it. One of the ways to improve Act One is making it more tailored and personalized to Identity and Personality and making sure it’s need supportive.
Another is more simple – being more explicit about how giving will make the donor feel good and doing this in Act One.
Kevin
