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:


  • Length of time since establishment (old = trusted)
  • Stewardship record (not wasteful)
  • Well governed (respected people associated)
  • Money will get to the cause (efficient administration and fundraising)
  • Good services (good services = good physical facilities)
  • Style of agency. (Overall impression gained from contact with/printed
    material from the agency.)


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?