In the mid-1970s, the first studies on the use of persuasion techniques for fundraising purposes were published in academic journals. The purpose was to understand the psychology of human generosity by adding short phrases in a donation request, that would somehow trigger us to say ‘yes’ to give money to a good cause. These techniques were named foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, the pique technique, etc.

For instance, with the foot-in-the-door technique the charity tried to get prospective donors to first comply to a small request (for instance: would you sign this petition?) which would increase the likelihood that they would comply with a later-larger request (for instance: will you donate money?).

Such persuasion techniques were interesting for several reasons. For one, they quantified the extent to which donation decisions could be influenced by words that had nothing to do with the merit of the charitable cause. In addition, they were very cheap and easy to use.

The value of this type of research, wasn’t to show that we were susceptible to manipulation—we already knew that—but rather to show how susceptible we were and which techniques we could all use to become better at influencing others.

Today, we have an abundance of easy-to-implement persuasion techniques at our disposal. We see them frequently and we use them to get people to say “yes” to supporting our worthy cause.

The only problem is that potential donors are growing increasingly frustrated with being the targets of manipulation attempts.

This is reflected in the following three fundraising challenges:

1. Avoidance Behaviour: Research shows that people are willing to sacrifice time and money to avoid a donation request. We take a longer route to our car to avoid being seen by a street canvasser, and we’re less likely to visit a commercial website if we expect to be met with a donation request from a charity.
2. Spam Categorization: Technological or legal measures are being implemented to protect people from unwanted solicitations. This includes spam filters on email accounts, spam-identifying apps on phones, and restrictions on street canvassers implemented by municipalities and local stores. Did you know that every time an NGO launches a telemarketing campaign, the Danish phone directory site 180.dk categorizes the calls as potential spam? This is a problem for fundraising organizations.
3. Manipulation Sensitivity: Recipients of donation requests have gradually learned to identify attempts at manipulation. What was clever in the 1970s is now obviously manipulative. For instance; research shows that images of crying children motivate recipients to donate money, but at the same time, also irritates them. So, while the image triggers a desire to stop the crying, it is also interpreted as an attempt at emotional manipulation. The result is that the effect of the image is canceled out by the sensitivity to manipulation. You could say that it ends in a fundraising zero-sum situation.

Implications for fundraising?
There are still plenty of researchers and fundraising practitioners who focus on developing new variations of old persuasion techniques. But new fundraising directions are also emerging that document and address the three challenges mentioned above.

I will conclude with four solution-oriented headlines presented by this research:

1. Have the courage to reduce manipulation and give your donors ownership of the relationship and the donation appeal.
2. Show empathy to your donors and acknowledge, in your communication, that requests can be annoying.
3. Work more with segmentation by trying to reduce the number of recipients who respond negatively, or not at all, to your requests (when 5% of recipients of an email campaign donate, do the remaining 95% become slightly annoyed? If so, can we filter some of those for whom the message is less relevant out?).
4. And my personal crusade: Get better at evaluating for long-term gain. Ask your organization: Do our KPIs help us create long-term value, or do they just make us better at persuasion for short-term gain?

Hopefully, fundraisers will increasingly be willing to experiment with approaches that recognize and overcome these challenges.

References used in text

Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M., & Trachtman, H. (2017). Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. Journal of political Economy, 125(3), 625-653.

Adena, M., & Huck, S. (2020). Online fundraising, self-image, and the long-term impact of ask avoidance. Management Science, 66(2), 722-743.

Kang, I. H., Leliveld, M. C., & Ferraro, R. (2022). The impact of facial emotional expression on the effectiveness of charitable advertisements: the role of sympathy and manipulative intent. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(5), e2281.

Shaw, S. (2019, June 12). Consumers are becoming wise to your nudge. Behavioral Scientist.

Kamdar, A., Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., Mullaney, B., & Syverson, C. (2015). Once and done: Leveraging behavioral economics to increase charitable contributions. Science of Philanthropy Initiative Working Paper, 25.

Damgaard, M. T., & Gravert, C. (2018). The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 15-26.

Thomas, S. A., Feng, S., & Krishnan, T. V. (2015). To retain? To upgrade? The effects of direct mail on regular donation behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1), 48-63

Jacob Schjødt

About Jacob Schjødt

Jacob Schjødt is a Ph.D. Candidate in Private Donor Management at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). He teaches behavioural science and marketing at CBS and donor retention for fundraising practitioners in Denmark. In collaboration with several Danish charities, Jacob conducts research on the effect of fundraising communication on acquisition, retention, and upgrade behavior. He has a background in behavioral science, customer journeys, and started his interest in fundraising as a face to face fundraiser.

Picture by Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pexels