As nonprofit stakeholders, we’re in the business of influence. From individual counseling, to outreach efforts, to fundraising, we are all (or should be) influence professionals. We want to make a difference in the world, to change it, to make it better, in short…to leave an influence for good and betterment. As I’ve read the most recent Chronicle, I’ve thought about the considerable donations many wealthy individuals have made. Aside from the financial benefits, I’m amazed at the reasons a wealthy individual pursues a particular cause. More often than not, the decision of where to provide money comes down to fairly simple things: an affiliation, a relationship, a cause they care about, or a sense of indebted gratitude to an institution that provided a health, education, or other service at an earlier time in life.
When considering how to influence others, the little things are more often than not the things that matter most. Text fundraising for Haiti has been a recent buzz, and many smart thinkers are trying to make sense of what texting and mobile platforms mean for fundraising and crisis responses in the future. I get the sense that many of these “new strategies” are being carefully crafted as intricate plots of persuasion working at near subliminal levels. Before we get too far off course, let me offer some basic principles of influence that we know from research, and then lets go from there. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Yes, some people make decisions based on careful consideration of facts and figures. When the stakes are high, and the number of hours and days is high, consideration is generally high also. But, that’s not how the majority of decisions are made. As with the previous examples of large donations from wealthy individuals, the decisions are generally based on more basic considerations. The truth is that, as humans, we are limited in our ability to process all of the information about every circumstance we encounter. Our brains can’t handle it all. As a result, we rely on “heuristics,” or shortcut “rules of thumb” that help us respond “well enough” when time or motivation to engage in careful consideration is lacking.
In his classic text “Influence,” Robert Cialdini has proposed a few of these “shortcut” rules that influence people. I believe they merit attention here:
Social Proof: If other’s are doing it, we tend to think it’s a good thing to do. Simply hearing that others are donating via text may cultivate more of the same behavior. That is, there’s “meta-messaging” going on about text messaging and donating, and that meta-messaging itself is contributing to the giving patterns itself. How much did twittering, talking, googling, or facebooking about text donations contribute to the number of text donations?
Authority: If people in positions of authority (i.e., with resources, titles, formal positions, ability to reward or punish) are doing it, we tend to think it’s a good thing. Yes, you big rock stars and TV celebrities, your humanitarian efforts do matter.
Reciprocity: When we’ve been given something, we may feel obligated to give something in return. How often has a person felt the need to “give back” to a university, a hospital, or a particular cause as a result of receiving a service from that organization at one point?
Commitment: When we’ve actively, publicly, and effortfully said we’ll do something, we’re more likely to follow through with it than when we haven’t made the commitment. Interestingly, it seems that having a cell phone is a public statement that says “I’ve got enough money to have a cell phone.” And, if they have enough money for a cell phone, they certainly have enough money for a $5-10 donation. If they don’t give, they might appear somewhat “schmucky-ish” and egotistical. Could it be that the simple act of owning a cell phone encourages some sore of public commitment? (Or is it simply that people with cell phones, indeed, generally have more resources to share with others?)
Liking and Similarity: When we like people–because they are funny, kind, or good–we tend to listen to them and want to comply with their requests. And, if they are similar to us–the same college, grew up in the same town, or even have the same name–we like them all the more.
Scarcity: When we perceive that something is running out, we place a higher value on it. With a higher value on it, we are more likely to do something about it. Generally, I would restrict scarcity to tangible commodities. But, crises and disasters also bring a scarcity of intangibles: peace, comfort, a sense of well-being and that everything is ok. I wonder if the response to Haiti wasn’t, in part, due to the perception that peace and “ok-ness” are running out. One way to regain that perception of peace is to contribute to its return.
What do you think about this? Are nonprofits in the business of influence? How much do you think a donor’s decision to give is based on the principles listed above? Do you have any examples of these influence principles being successful in your fundraising efforts?