Why people don't give

There have been a number of recent posts on various blogs looking at the reasons why people don't give to charity.

Last week I added to the debate when I wrote about nine techniques that donors use to avoid giving to appeals.

Reading them, you'll see that they could more accurately be described as the techniques donors use to avoid making a decision about giving.

They allow the donor to distance themselves from having to refuse a gift. If you are a nice charitable person, saying no to a good cause can generate some real self-esteem or guilt issues. Handily, the blow can be softened by placing the blame elsewhere.

But donors do actively make decisions not to give and at Bluefrog we see tackling these barriers as a central part of any fundraising strategy. As a result, we've spent a fair amount of time in research looking at what they are and how we address them.

We've identified three main reasons.

Unable

It's an obvious one. But one that perhaps too few charities give consideration too. If you don't have much disposable income or feel uncertain or insecure about the future, there is a negative impact on giving behaviour. We also discovered that a significant number of people going through a major transition in their life – child birth, divorce, job change, house moving – also restrict giving.

Ineffective

This covers the age old complaint of admin costs, concerns over corruption and mismanagement and the relative lack of worth of the cause. Interestingly, it can also relate to gift prompts that are seen as being too small to make any difference to the problem being tackled.

Unengaged

There may be no awareness of the organisation or the cause. The potential donor may be emotionally occupied elsewhere and 'can't be bothered' to give. The emotional distance between the donor and those in need might be too great and, of course, the donor may be emotionally withdrawn to the point that don't have any need to give.

These barriers can be tackled in different ways.

The first, by offering a very low entry price – an example of which is detailed here – and through making giving easy.

The second requires an emphasis on efficiency and demonstrating beneficiary need. Being open and developing credibility is an essential part of this process.

The third is the most important and can only be tackled by taking the donor perspective and responding to their needs. Which you can find more about here.

Comments

[Andrew Robinson]

Hi Mark,

Just to pick up on a contradiction in your model.

You say that "ineffective" complaints also include people who feel that low gift prompts are too low to make any difference, and hence are a turn off.

But then you say that low gifts should be used to not exclude those who are "unable" to give.

So, should low gifts be used or not?

I suppose the answer comes down to which group presents the biggest potential for the cause in terms of net income and life time value. Do you have any knowledge around which of these two groups gives the biggest opportunity?

[mark phillips]

Hi Andrew

Reading back, I should have expanded on this point.

They don't have to be contradictory if we think about how we place an appeal into context for the donor.

The shopping list approach is an example of how barriers can be tackled.

For example, asking people to give £5 to help a city hit by a disaster could be seen as a drop in the ocean (and a turn off). But asking for £5 to provide a child living in that city with food and clean water will be more likely to be seen as an effective use of funds, providing life-saving help (and a low-value turn on).

Thanks for commenting and giving me the chance to explain further.

Best wishes

Mark

[Nicola Harvey]

Hi

Just wondered if either of you had seen the new fundraising model that See The Difference are about to launch which has studied the reasons why people don't give and come up with a solution - if you're interested check out www.seethedifference.org

Best wishes
Nicola

[mark phillips]

Hi Nicola

I have seen See The Difference and even joined their group on Facebook, but I'm afraid I don't really understand what their offer is.

Feedback is powerful and many charities are not that good at providing it in an engaging way. Where they do, we see retention and income at very high levels.

But I can't see how creating a searchable site with videos is going to drive much traffic or raise money – even if it promises feedback. The videos I've seen on their main site haven't been very impressive.

The team behind it don't seem to have much experience of fundraising and, to me, it shows.

I shall reserve final judgement until I see it live. Until them, I wish them loads of luck and hope it works.

Thanks for reading