« Need to replace your older donors? | Main | Boomers are getting ready to help you »

Emotional fundraising: 1 > 2,000,000

Anyone who follows the genocide in Darfur -- or any number of other human catastrophes -- is flabbergasted by the lack of response to the tragedy. How can something so huge not stir more action?

New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof recently looked at the question in Save the Darfur Puppy (a subscription to TimesSelect is required to read this piece). He says the thing that would get action would be a "suffering puppy with big eyes and floppy ears."

That's the implication of a series of studies by psychologists trying to understand why people -- good, conscientious people -- aren't moved by genocide or famines. Time and again, we've seen that the human conscience just isn't pricked by mass suffering, while an individual child (or puppy) in distress causes our hearts to flutter.

It's true. The suffering of one puppy -- a puppy with a face, that whimpers with pain and quivers with fear -- is something the human mind can grasp and respond to. The suffering of two million refugees -- there's no face, no sound, almost nothing to stir the heart and motivate action.

So what are you going to do?

  • You could lecture your donors about their priorities. Of course, that's like the teacher you yells at the students who are present because so many students are absent. And you're wasting your time on the wrong problem.
  • You could try to change human neurology through education. Good luck.
  • Or you can work in the real world. Put an actual human face on the tragedy. One person whose suffering is real, visible, and understandable.

It just doesn't seem right that one puppy can trump two million human beings on the emotion scale. The puppy also edges out the AIDS epidemic, hunger in America, and rising sea levels.

That's the way it is. You can complain about it all you want, but that won't change anything, or raise much money. Or you can deal with the world as it really is. And raise the funds needed to help solve the problem.

Which choice is the successful fundraiser making?


Technorati Tags: , ,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b8ab69e200d835806ef369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Emotional fundraising: 1 > 2,000,000:

» Why I think gloom and doom backfire from Katyas NonProfit Marketing Blog
Ive been disappointed lately with a number of PSA that were gripping, catchy, emotional and yet fell flat on the call to action because they couldnt move off their doom and gloom message. Heres a good example, from Houtlust ... [Read More]

Comments

It's human nature. We can't understand the suffering of millions, we can't even visualise millions. Nor a single million. What does a million of anything look like? So how can I, little old me, possibly HELP millions. I can't. So I don't. But I can help THAT ONE person. I can make a difference to a single life, perhaps. So I'll try.

And that's why a single puppy will trump millions, and that's why we have to give the suffering of millions a single face. You can tell your donors how they've helped one person, and how their next donation will change the ife of someone like them.

And as a fundraiser, you can inspire people to believe that they can make a difference to millions.

I think you are missing about half the picture.

Do you think it would be more valuable (assuming equal cost) to end the Darfur crisis, or save 3 puppies? What is the reason for your preference?

However, saving 3 puppies is cheaper, and easier, than saving all of Darfur. Therefore, there is a feeling of accomplishment when you save said puppies, because you CAN feasibly save all of them, whereas when you shoot off your same $20, $45, even $1000, towards the millions of people in Darfur - it feels like nothing is happening. Therefore, you need to give the tragedy a face. 'If you send $x, you save THIS woman. If you send $x, you save THIS little kid. You save THIS man.' and then they can take that picture, print it out, and say, I am responsible for the fact that this human being is no longer suffering.

Even if your $1000 saved 50, or 100, or even all of them, that wouldn't be one face, one human being that you could feasibly connect with and care about.

That's exactly right. It's not a question of what's logically correct, but the way our brains work. Of course it's better to do the thing that has the most impact. But the part of the brain that chooses to act compassionately is not the same part that makes those calculations.

The comments to this entry are closed.


If you're serious about raising money from donors, you need to get serious about donors. More than ever before, donors are insisting that you share power with them, not treating them like passive ATMs. This blog is about the ways you can do that -- and the rewards that await you and your donors when you do.

Jeff Brooks, creative director at Merkle, has been serving the nonprofit community for nearly 20 years. He wants to be a curmudgeon when he grows up, and considers blogging great training. You can reach him at
<jbrooks [at] merkleinc [dot] com.More
  See this blog's policies.
A great partner for the nonprofit that wants to get donor-powered and grow revenue like crazy!
Subscribe by e-mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


AddThis Feed Button

Add to Technorati Favorites