As a consultant and social researcher deeply immersed in the world of fundraising, one might expect me to champion research dictating which stories drive charitable giving from donors. However, my knowledge of both qualitative and quantitative methods, combined with my frontline fundraising experience, has instilled a healthy dose of skepticism in me. In this article, I aim to shed light on several reasons why we should approach research on donor stories cautiously and propose alternative avenues for exploration.
Many of us in fundraising or nonprofit marketing are familiar with the graphic that originated from the 2009 study titled “The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements” by Deborah A. Small and Nicole M. Verrochi, published in the Journal of the American Marketing Association.
Many prominent figures in fundraising frequently reference this study as conclusive evidence supporting the use of photos depicting extreme suffering. How could any organization possibly resist such conclusive, valid, empirically-sound evidence in support of “sad faces”?
Tom Ahern, in response to this study, stated, “employees who espouse an end to ‘Poverty Porn’ are giving [leadership] the worst financial advice in the history of fundraising.” He echoed the sentiments of fellow fundraising expert Jeff Brooks, whom he claimed asserted that, “sad children raise more money by far than happy children. End of story.” However, it’s worth noting that Jeff Brooks himself offered a more nuanced and measured perspective on the issue:
“We should approach studies like these with a heavy dose of skepticism; they aren’t fundraising situations with real donors, but artificial situations with college students. Also, there is a lot more information in a photo than a sad/neutral/happy expression. There are sad faces that make people feel defensive. There are happy faces that somehow go straight to the heart. Sometimes there are things in the background of the photo that undermine what you see in the faces.”
Jeff is spot on in both regards.
Most people don’t bother to read the study, because if they did, they would find that it was conducted of 151 American college students, with the average age being twenty-one. (I’m willing to bet that’s quite a different demographic form your donor population). Now, the students were paid $10 to show up and fill out an online questionnaire. They were told they could donate their $10 to cancer research. They were divided into three groups. One group was shown a campaign ad of a child smiling, another group was shown the same ad featuring a child with a neutral expression, and the third group was shown the ad with a child frowning. The frowning child got 50% more donations than happy or neutral face. That’s all.
For those who want to see the evidence:
“The proportion of people in the sad expression condition who donated was 77.4%, compared with 52.1% in the happy condition and 52.0% in the neutral condition. A chi-square test comparing the sad condition with the other two conditions was significant (χ2(1) = 9.26, p < .005). In terms of magnitude ($0–$10 range), a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a main effect of expression on donation amount (F(2, 145) = 3.53, p < .05, ηp 2 = .05). Giving was greater for the sad expression than for each of the other two expressions (both ps < .03).”
Statistically significant, yes, but look at the graph from the actual publication:
It’s no surprise that someone felt compelled to create a new diagram featuring percentages. After all, I doubt many of my friends in the fundraising field would be motivated to take action by a mere $1.12 difference in giving.
Here are the issues:
- The study participants were college students with a median age of 21, which likely differs significantly from the median age of your donors, likely over 60.
- People often behave differently in simulations than in real-life scenarios.
- Behavior can also vary when using fake money compared to real money.
Given these factors, it’s questionable whether this research, which used participants who don’t accurately reflect the donor pool and involved giving away money with photos of healthy children, should be the sole basis for shaping our communications strategies.
Jeff’s second point raises a critical issue: the challenge of isolating all variables that influence a donor’s decision to give. This difficulty is underscored by the concept of spurious correlations, where two variables may appear related but have no actual connection. For instance, did you know that the popularity of the first name Theodore correlates with the number of kilowatt hours of fossil fuel use in Burundi? Or that the number of votes for a Democratic presidential candidate in Montana correlates with the number of movies Tom Cruise appeared in? Coincidence? Well. Yeah. My point is, when analyzing donor responses to communications, numerous factors come into play, making it challenging to attribute giving solely to facial expressions or other isolated variables.
Typically, at this juncture, someone might interject with the question: “But what about studies conducted on actual donors by real nonprofits using authentic advertisements?” Indeed, many of these studies have shown an increase in donations with images portraying sadness, suffering, or negativity, although some also demonstrate the opposite, and others remain inconclusive.
However, there are several issues to consider with these “real” studies.,
- They often focus on social media/online giving or direct mail, neglecting other fundraising methods.
- Much of the research prioritizes acquisition over retention, potentially hindering long-term engagement. Donor acquisition strategies may capitalize on narratives evoking guilt or pity, leading to immediate giving but potentially faltering in sustaining engagement.
- These studies primarily involve small-dollar donations rather than major gifts, which constitute the majority of individual giving.
For those seeking more insights into ethical storytelling, I recommend exploring articles on “beneficiary framing” or “beneficiary portrayal” that center on the perspectives of the individuals depicted rather than the donors. Engaging directly with the viewpoints of those who have experienced adversity can provide deeper insights into charitable giving dynamics. Some recommended studies include “The People in the Pictures” by Save the Children and the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy’s report on “User Views of Fundraising.” These resources delve into how narratives are perceived by aid recipients, challenging assumptions and offering a nuanced understanding of storytelling’s impact.
While research on donor reactions to ethical stories may provide valuable insights, it’s essential to approach findings critically. By acknowledging research limitations and exploring alternative avenues, we can cultivate a nuanced understanding of donor engagement and drive meaningful impact in philanthropy.