Making a Quality "Ask"

Lots of preachers spend time figuring out how to motivate people to give--using theology, guilt, manipulation and outright begging.  Let's think for a few moments, however, about the "ask" itself.  Research indicates the importance of two elements in the "ask":

--the "legitimation of paltry donations" (LDP), and

--the importance of "social proof" in the size of the donations.

Only academics could get away with labeling a charitable gift as "paltry", by the way.  I don't write it.  I just report it.

In the November 2007 edition of Communication Research Reports, Sachiyo Shearman and Jin Yoo wrote an article entitled ‘‘'Even a Penny Will Help!': Legitimization of Paltry Donation and Social Proof in Soliciting Donation to a Charitable Organization.  The authors expanded previous research by Cialdini and others on ways that might maximize both compliance and amount in charitable giving.  The article can be found in full at 

http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/even_a_penny_will_help_-_legitimization_of_paltry_donation_and_social_proof_in_soliciting_donation_to_a_charitable_organization.pdf.

The first element is defined this way: "Legitimization...refers to the acknowledgment that what was previously not accepted is to be accepted as a new standard or norm. LPD is a very simple legitimization message justifying a small donation."  So, we use language that helps givers to understand that small gifts are legitimate.

A gift I once received...

The challenge is to convey this message without reducing the aggregate giving.  The researchers found that this could be accomplished by "social proof."  This strategy informs potential givers that people "like them" in some way have given a certain amount.  In the study, for example, the phrase ‘‘students like you have been donating about $3 to $5 dollars’’ was used as part of the "ask."

The study found that participants who heard both the LPD and social proof messages contributed more frequently and in greater amounts than those who only heard one or the other.  The control group heard neither message and gave the least in both frequency and amount.  

Please read the research report for the caveats, conditions and exceptions (they are manifold).

There is, however, perhaps something to be gained here.  In our church asking, do we legitimate smaller gifts?  Generally I think we do not.  Do we offer some standard of comparison so that people can self-identify in some meaningful way?  Generally I think we do not.  In the latter case in particular, we can do some giver analysis and publicize that analysis in ways that help people to find their place in the system.  This might be simply by income level.  Perhaps it is possible to segment by age in terms of giving amounts or by geography or by...?

The salient point is that most people need to know two things.  First, they need to know that any and all gifts are important.  Second, they need to have some kind of giving anchor in a group with which they can identify.  "Asks" that meet these conditions will experience an increased level of effectiveness.