Thanks for the posts on both “Don’t Think, Give” and “Think, Then Give”. I led the Money for Good II report that the later referenced and wanted to chime in on a few topics.

First, I’m with you that giving is emotional not rational for the vast majority of donors. In fact, in our first piece of research on this topic, “Money for Good I” (www.hopeconsulting.us/money-for-good) we derived six segments of individual donors. One only of the six prioritized the impact of the nonprofit; the others are driven by other, more emotional, motivations.

In that research we also found that donors rarely research. Our goal in Money for Good II (www.guidestar.org/moneyforgood) was to understand what it would take to get more donors to do research, and to ultimately fund the organizations that are performing the best.

A few findings from our work:
- Donors want a full picture of a nonprofit. This doesn’t mean they want to be bombarded with data, but that they want to know about the organization’s mission, impact, legitimacy, and how it uses its funds
- Donors are willing to take in information if provided cleanly and transparently; we don’t have to limit them to “simple” ratings
- The one area where donors show an unmet need is around information on a nonprofit’s impact and effectiveness

Now, we do think that it will be very difficult to change donor behavior (and we talk at length around the reasons for that in the research). But we do believe that nonprofits should start to provide more information about their impact and effectiveness. Donors do want to understand this, they are not getting the information today, and this is another way that nonprofits can engage with their donors on the important work that they are doing.

But a few donors treat igiving as a much more rational and economic way, needing impact and SROI evidence before parting with their money. These people tend to be wealthier major donors, acting like “investors” trying to choose which companies to invest in.

The key thing for a fundraiser is to identify if the potential donor is an “investor”. If so, present the impact story as the hok before offering emotional case studies. But with most donors the sequence needs to be the other way round.

- Emotion works to recruit people; rational support helps keep them
- Emotion works at low value; the need for rational support increases will the
value of the donation
- Some charity brands or sectors require more rational communications/impact
reporting/transparency, others do not (despite what people say in groups)
- The proof is in the pudding – but only with patience. Test two communications, one of each type, at recruitment. Analyse the short term ROI. Most organisations will then declare a ‘winner’, and my bet is that 9 out of 10 winners will be more emotional. But: track the recruits from the more rational recruitment pack and – assuming they get appropriate SRM – the ‘thinkers will have have a higher LTV.
Maybe.