Do sad faces make donors give more?

Do pictures of sad children stir more people to give than picture of happy children? In my experience: sometimes.

Recent research in the Journal of Marketing Research offers a more definitive answer than I do at The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements (PDF, 54 pages).

From the abstract:

This paper examines how the expression of emotion on a victim's face affects both sympathy and giving. Building on theories of emotional contagion and sympathy the authors propose that (a) people "catch the emotions displayed on a victim's face and (b) they are particularly sympathetic and likely to donate when viewing sad expressions, relative to happy or neutral expressions.

These findings straddle the line between blindingly obvious and just plain wrong.

Obvious because anyone who's done repeated image testing in fundraising will tell you that "sad" images are usually more effective than happy ones.

But wrong because the research didn't look at actual fundraising results. And anyone who does that knows that sad faces are not always more effective. It depends on what you're raising funds for. Sometimes a happy image just kicks butt over a sad one.

Other times a sad image doesn't quite work for various reasons. For example, when children are in pain, they frequently furrow their brows so their expression of pain seems in the context of a photo to be an angry scowl. Not sympathetic. That type of image often doesn't work very well.

The photo problem I see most often in fundraising material isn't whether images are sad or not, but it's a radical disconnect between the message in copy and the message of the photos. It very often goes like this:

Copy: 35,000 children died today from hunger.

Photo: Happy child.

These two conflicting messages basically cancel each other out.

It would make our jobs easier if we could trust a blanket statement about the types of images to use. But here in the real world, it's just not that simple.

Thanks to Cause Marketing for the tip.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, images

Comments

[Karen Zapp]

Jeff,

You raise many good points. In addition, each organization needs to TEST what works for them. I've seen cases where a sad photo does very well (a photo that doesn't exploit or demean; but simply shows the genuine need so donors get a clear message).

And I've seen appeals where a happy photo worked the best. The example I'm thinking of was an International Red Cross appeal for a specific disaster. It showed a happy child with a relief worker which reinforced the hope a donation brings.

As you said, it depends on what reinforces the message from the copy. And again, what works best for the individual organization. Testing plus a consistent message throughout the appeal and not sweeping generalizations.

Karen Zapp, Fundraising Copywriter
http://www.PKscribe.com

[Paul Jones]

Hi Jeff:

Thanks for the tip of the hat.

Thanks also for your input into this conversation. You have far deeper expertise in direct fundraising than I.

Folks like you have been testing sad and happy faces for a very long time and you know exactly what does and doesn't work.

My objection to the application of the research was more normative than quantitative. To me sad pix of children are potentially exploitive.

Warm regards,
Paul

[Mal Warwick]

Jeff -- You've neglected to mention an important factor here: sometimes a picture of a sad, famished, or wounded child can trigger a paternalistic reaction which is counter to the values of the charity. Many of the most sophisticated overseas aid and development organizations will refuse to run tear-jerking photos as a matter of policy -- regardless of whether they might raise more money.