Some fundraisers insist that effective fundraising must put "negative" information in front of donors -- that is, a problem for them to help solve.
Others say we should inspire donors to action by showing them positive change that they can become part of by giving.
Which is right?
The Boomerang Blog suggests positive/negative is the wrong question, at How Do You Use Psychological Appeal Persuasion Triggers So They Complement Each Other?
Instead, it's about giving donors the "gift of joy."
When you use scarcity ... you’re actually tapping into something positive the donor wants. [W]hen you channel the principle of loss aversion, you simply give people a ... choice. Go down the one route and something they care about will be lost. Go down the other route and they, and those they help, will win.
If you're stuck in the positive/negative either/or paradigm, it seems you have to choose between:
- All good news, which tells donors they aren't needed.
- All bad news, which can work up to a point, but isn't sustainable because it shows them they don't make any difference.
Not a good place to be stuck.
Instead, fundraisinag should go like this:
- There's a problem (a very real and serious problem).
- But there's also a solution, and you can be part of it.
Then (and here's the key that far too many fundraisers don't do), you show them that the solution is happening. That their giving really did what you said it would do. This second part happens when you thank donors and report back, and it's key to keeping new donors.
Recent Comments