You’ve seen the headlines: “Americans more divided than ever”, “Gridlock reaching threat level crimson, which is worse than red somehow”, and “Pelosi-McConnell dancing knife fight leaves two dead.”*
Seemingly, parties can’t agree on anything.
But here’s a ray of hope. They can agree on donors chipping in:
Bernie Sanders and MoveOn:
I’ll be honest: usually my research for this blog is harder than this. The hardest parts of finding these were:
- Remembering who had been running for president. For example, it turns out Lincoln Chafee is not a model of car.
- Finding photographic from former campaign sites. There’s evidence that Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and others used chip-in language, but couldn’t find them online. So passes away the glory of a presidential campaign.
But nonprofits don’t seem to be using “chip in” much. Yet. I think BirdConservancy.org was the largest organization I could find in my Googling.
So why do political organizations almost unanimously use “chip in”? Here are my theories:
- “Chip in” sounds very small. Giving permission for small donations increases the likelihood of giving. This is probably part of the appeal. This extends to the standard ask strings. Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Sanders, and the current Republican frontrunner (since I pledged I wouldn’t use his name as a cheap SEO play) all start their asks at $3-25. In fact, if you take out Kasich, the highest initial ask is $15 (ironically, for Bernie Sanders).
- Making a cost sound small also decreases the amount of pain that someone feels from making a purchase/donation.
- The value of a name in political spheres far exceeds just their donation value. A $3 donor is also a voter at worst and perhaps a volunteer or district captain. And of course, they may be able to give more in the future. A $2,700 donor is these things, plus someone who may be able to attract like-minded funders at a max level.
I say this is in political spheres. But isn’t this true for your nonprofit as well? You want that $3 donor as a volunteer, walker, bequest donor, monthly donor, etc. And yet we generally have higher online ask thresholds.
- “Chip in” implies that others are doing the same. In fact, Oxford Dictionaries defines “chip in” as “contribute something as one’s share of a joint activity, cost, etc.” Social proof is a powerful persuasive force and knowing that others are doing it and are counting on you too can greatly influence decisions.
- People like to be a part of something bigger than themselves. This is especially true for causes, political or non-profit. The ability to make something part of your identity that ties you into a larger in-group can be very powerful.
So I’d encourage you to try chipping in as part of your emailing strategy (and, if it works, test elsewhere) as a way of pulling these cognitive levers.
A post-script: after I drafted this piece, this came in from the Clinton campaign:
* I will offer a free signed book (in that I will print out any one of my ebooks , sign it, and mail it to you) for the first person who can do a Photoshop of this based on West Side Story.