The Nonprofit FAQ
| What influences people's reactions to npo materials? |
| NOTE: On Sept. 5, 1996, Ted Flack ( t.flack@qut.edu.au ) wrote: During the last 20 years or so I have been involved in two qualitative market research projects which attempted to explore this question of "reputation" and its correlation if any with levels of giving to the agencies involved. The finding of both research projects was that "reputation" is one of the factors that impact the broader notion of "trust" and that trust is a central element in the decision to give. The focus groups were drawn from a number of different samples including active donors/supporters across a number of socio-economic and demographic groups. It was found that the trust factor is made up of a raft of interrelated impressions which include:
The notion that agencies have "style" was explored in follow up research by asking focus groups to describe the agency in terms of human personality. I recall the shock of the Board (which included some very empowered women) when they read that the overall impression of their agency among the focus groups was like meeting a middle aged, old fashioned unmarried aunt, who is very prim and proper, careful with her money, tending to be a little cold and formal but very trustworthy! Ted Flack A Practitioner Looking For Understanding Voice at the office (07)38084098 Voice at home (07)32845505 Fax at office (07)38088109 :::::End of original message Putnam Barber ( pbarber@eskimo.com ) wrote: Are the results of your work available in greater detail? TF: I have copies of the two reports which were commissioned by the two agencies for which I was working at the time. The research has never been published, although the agencies did approve of general details being disclosed at an Australian fundraising conference some years ago. To publish the material in detail, I would need to get their approval. PB: Are the items on your list rank-ordered? Is age-of-organization the strongest influence? And, at sort of the other end of the logical spectrum, why doesn't the "value" or "urgency" of the need addressed mentioned at all? Is that because your studies dealt within a circumscribed field of service? TF: The research was qualitative and did not attempt to rank the factors in order of importance, rather tried to pick up recurrent themes from the free flowing conversations within the focus groups. There is comparative material on the relative "worthiness" of various causes in the research but specific appeal material was not evaluated in terms of "urgency". I think it likely that participants did make subconscience value judgements based on the impressions they had of relative urgency amongst other things. PB: I think it's interesting that the buzzword "innovative" doesn't show up here at all, even in a shadow. TF: In the light of your comment, I looked again at the research to check if there was any reference to or 'shadow' of "innovative". It did not rate a mention. I wonder if the average donor/supporter would have enough information to make an assessment about the comparative innovation of NPOs? Perhaps professional philanthropists are a more informed market as a result of their institution's submission processes? |