Research Archives - Claxon Communication

How do you motivate motivation?

July 27, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

[The Language Lab makes it easy for you to put research to work for you and your mission. Each installment gives you research-backed intel on one specific way you can work happier, smarter, and more effectively. To stay in the know, sign up to get Language Lab missives delivered directly to your inbox.]

********************

The One Thing You Need to Know: Get out and meet people! Meeting someone who will benefit from your work will increase your perseverance, long-term motivation, and success.

Your Motivation Mojo

Motivation is elusive.

For instance, you get all pumped up to work out five days a week. It all starts off really well. You kickbox and yoga the heck out of your newly minted gym pass and jaunty workout gear, yes you do. Quite a week. Motivation mojo is in awesome mode.

Fast-forward to week three. It is 6AM. Your BodyCombat class starts in 30 minutes and rather than donning your workout gear, you stare lovingly at the snooze button…

Zap! Just like that, your motivation mojo goes missing.

This happens in all aspects of our lives. It’s one thing to lose your gym mojo. It’s another thing to lose your work mojo. Because in your line of work, when you lose your mojo, the people you serve lose out as well.

Want to know something magical? You can keep your motivation mojo motivated simply by meeting someone that your work benefits. This is true for you, your staff, your volunteers, your board–everyone. Indeed, this motivation trick works on everyone, regardless of their role.

Researchers did a series of experiments on people working in a fundraising organization. These folks raised money by working the phones. In the experiment, one group interacted briefly with a beneficiary. The other group read a letter from a beneficiary and talked about the letter amongst themselves, i.e. no contact.

Guess what? A month later, the group that read the letter saw basically no difference in persistence or job performance. However–and this is a BIG however–the group that interacted with the beneficiary showed way more persistence (142% more phone time) and job performance (171% more money raised).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Although this research took place in a fundraising organization, the researchers were not thinking of this as advancing an understanding of fundraising. No, they were looking at it through the lens of organizational psychology and the importance of word design to increase task significance and thereby motivation and effectiveness. So, yes, it applies to fundraising. But the application is much broader and, therefore, more widely relevant.

Want more on motivation?

Read the study, Impact and the Art of Motivation Maintenance, right here.
If you find yourself needing the motivation to write, go meet a beneficiary, and then turn on Written Kitten. Right your little heart out!
Try out a Pomodora Timer. (I am a big fan of the ‘Awwesome’ option. Go ahead, try it.)

*****
Did you hear about the August 24th, FREE Words on a Mission Webinar we are hosting? You can sign up here.

You are more effective than you think you are!

July 7, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

Remember the little boy and the starfis h story from the last Language Lab?

That story is largely about how we humans (irrationally) discount the good we do when faced with other problems we can’t solve.

While we were researching this phenomenon, we learned a new word: pseudoinefficacy. Oooooooh. Aaaaaaaah. #ShinyNewWord

If you’ve been following Claxon for any time at all, you know how much we love discovering new words. Gets us all giddy. This one is no exception. Not that pseudoinefficacy is a good thing. (It isn’t.) But it is super great to find a new word that sums up such a big problem.

Okay, so, what does pseudoinefficacy mean? Thought you’d never ask.

It is the false (pseudo) belief that you are ineffective when, in fact, you are effective.

We’ve been looking at why it is so extra special important to focus on the Story of One (here and here). Pseudoinefficacy explains why stories of one make a difference in your donations. If supporters feel like the problem is so big that it can’t be solved, they may stop paying attention to the good they can do.

Using our starfish example: if donors start looking at all the starfish on the shore rather than the one starfish they can save, pseudoinefficacy can kick in and drain their motivation to donate. #SadStarfish

Guess what? Your supporters aren’t the only ones susceptible to the scourge of pseudoinefficacy. You may be suffering from it as well.

Yeah, let’s talk about you for a minute, shall we?

The work you do is hard. The problems you are trying to solve are BIG. Your to-do list is looooooooooooooooooong. If you focus on all the things you haven’t done – all of the things you may never get done – you’re likely to stop celebrating all of the ways in which you have kicked ass and taken names.

This is so sad. You deserve to be celebrated. And yet, rather than feeling joyful, you feel like a deflated balloon after a birthday blowout. Sad and droopy and all alone in the corner. Like Baby. Forlornly watching from a distance.

But no one puts Baby in the corner. Nope, no one.

How do you pick yourself up and do your equivalent of the Big Final Leap with everyone looking on in celebratory awe, i.e. how do you kick pseudoinefficacy to the curb?

Good news: the things that work on your donors can also work on you.

Remind yourself that you are being irrational. Simply remembering that it is silly to not value the good you do can be enough to snap you out of it. (Warning: Donors don’t really like to be told that they’re being irrational. So tread lightly.)
Take time to focus on the ways you, and/or your organization, are effective. Find a Story of One and meditate on it. (Or better yet, meet a beneficiary in person. In one study, this increased donations by 171%.) Then share the story with your supporters. Doesn’t need to be a big ol’ spread in the annual report (although those are super fab). Post it on Facebook. Or Instagram. Or wherever. Sharing it will reinvigorate you.
Celebrate your effectiveness to boost your motivation so you can get back to feeling awesome. Because you–and your donors–are exactly that. A.W.E.S.O.M.E.

Deeper Dive
Want more on how to snap out of sad starfish mode, and turn on Super Star Mode at full force? Here you go.

*****
Countdown to Fall Quarter at Claxon University is on: only 67 days left. Unleash your awesome this fall! (These fine folks did. You can, too.)

Totally Irrational

June 28, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

The one thing you need to know:

Don’t mention all the people/puppies/trees that someone’s donation will fall short of helping. Focus on what it will help.

So, what’s the deal?

We’re totally irrational about our charitable giving. We like to think we’re rational. But when it comes down to it, we’re just not. (My fave piece on this is Homer Simpson for Nonprofits.)

This plays out in a bunch of different ways. But one specific way has to do with how you frame your stories. Per the last Language Lab post, you’re writing stories that shine a bright light on one super amazing person (or puppy…I’ll stop with the puppies now) that a donor could help, right? Right.

It’s oh-so-tempting to mention that there are other people who also need help. Big, epic social issues generally involve more than one person. Feels weird not to mention the other people. But do so at your own peril. Because as soon as you mention all the others–zap!–all the magic disappears.

The donor is now focused on the unmet need. They get sad and unhappy. They feel like their donation couldn’t possibly make a difference so what’s the point? Instead of making a donation, they drag themselves to the nearest Starbucks and drown their charitable sorrows in a double tall, split shot vanilla latte made with organic, wholesome milk.

For the same price that they just spent on their latte, the donor could’ve made a difference in someone’s life. But they no longer felt like they could.

Hot Tips

If you’re going to mention more than one person, adhere to WJ Lecky’s idea of an expanding circle. It starts with the individual and then goes to the family then the community, etc. Unify more people together into one as you go.
Harken back to what you learned about unit-asking. If you need to show the larger context, ask your supporter to think about what they would give to help one person first. Then–and only then–expand to more people.
Riff on the Starfish & the Boy story. (The little boy sure teaches the sourpuss man a thing or two, doesn’t he?)
Or riff on: “To the world, you may be but one person. But to one person, you may be the world.”

P.S. Countdown to Fall Quarter at Claxon University is on: only 76 days left. Unleash your awesome this fall! (These fine folks did. You can, too.)

The Story of One. And Only One.

June 23, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

In the last Language Lab, we talked about how oxytocin and dopamine generate generosity. I said there was more to say about oxytocin and storytelling. Here’s the more.

The One Thing You Need to Know: Tell stories about one person. Not thousands of people. Or hundreds of people. Or even two people. One person. Singular.

Why One Works
You’ve likely heard the saying: “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” (Who said this first is up for debate, by the way.) These are words to live by if you’re looking to get people jazzed about your world-changing work.

But why? The arithmetic of compassion. That’s why.

Watch this:

Visualize one puppy
Now visualize 1,000 puppies

Which visual was stronger? Likely the one of the one puppy. Your brain could fill in all the adorable details–her brown eyes, her black, twitching nose, her cinnamon colored, white speckled ears. Oooooooohhhh. Adorbs!

What about the image of the 1000 puppies? Still cute. Cuz they’re puppies. But fuzzy. Lacking details. Just a mass of puppiness.

Fuzzy masses aren’t compelling.

Bonus Bit: Not only do people respond more to one person/puppy, they feel better when they’ve helped that one person/puppy. So by telling the Story of One, you not only grab people’s attention more easily, but–if it comes to pass that they donate–they feel better about their donation. (Can you say “win/win”?)

Important Stuff

Don’t just tell the story of one–show the story of one. Pictures drive the point home. They light up the parts of the brain that make someone feel generous. (Back to the oxytocin…)
“Compassion fade” is a real term and a real thing. From Paul Slovic et al, “ Our capacity to feel sympathy for people in need appears limited, and this form of compassion fatigue can lead to apathy and inaction…” If you have to, have to, have to talk about more than one person, try to make them a unit. Like a family or a cohesive community.
Still not sure how to wrap your brain around all this oneness? This super short story about a boy and his starfish is for you.

Countdown to Fall Quarter at Claxon University has begun: only 88 days left. Unleash your awesome this fall! (These fine folks did. You can, too.)

Love Drug or Moral Molecule?

June 14, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

The One Thing You Need to Know: You will be more successful if you create trust with your donors/supporters/other important people in your life by avoiding jargon and using easy-to-understand language.

RELEASE THE DRUGS*

Look at this picture. Soak it in.

Look at those two. Cute, right? Want to know something neat? That mum’s brain is awash in a chemical called ‘oxytocin’. Mmmmmm….oxytocin. Frequently referred to as the Love Drug, oxytocin makes us feel happy, nice, and generous.

But here’s the really important thing about oxytocin as it relates specifically to doing more good in the world: oxytocin it’s not just the Love Drug, it’s the Moral Molecule.

You see, we get all those happy, snuggly, generous feelings when social bonding occurs. Super smartie Paul Zak’s coined the term, “The Moral Molecule”. He wrote a book by the same name. In it, he explains that social bonding occurs when you trust someone. The person on the receiving end of a trust-inducing gesture reciprocates trust and also pays it forward. And–voila–you have a generosity fueling trust-fest. See how that could be useful for you?!

Neat news: you can initiate feelings of trust by doing exactly the same things I recommended you do not seem like a fraud. To review:

Use a wider variety of words: The Wordifier can help you with this.
Increase your readability: Turn on the Readability statistics in Word or use a tool like this one.
Avoid jargon: The Chronicle of Philanthropy just ran a super-duper article on jargon eradication. (Disclaimer: I’m quoted in this piece.)

There’s actually another cool thing to know about oxytocin and its (practically) magical ability to get people psyched about your work. Oxytocin explains why telling a story that focuses on one person in need, vs. lots o’ people in need, works so well. But I think we’ve covered enough for today. We’ll cover the Story of One research in the next Language Lab, okay?

Want a deeper dive?

Check out Paul Zak’s piece on what narrative exposure (yes, that’s an actual term) has to do with charitable giving.

Also think about signing up for Claxon University–home of clear and compelling communication that raises awareness, increases, and does more good in the world. Fall Quarter registration is now open!

*Technically, a drug is a foreign substance that you introduce into the body. So, if you make it yourself it isn’t a drug. It’s a chemical. But “Release the Chemicals” wasn’t as zippy. And hey, check you out. Reading the fine print. Way to go, word nerd!

Don’t be a fraud

May 18, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

The One Thing You Need to Know:
Avoid jargon and keep readability high if you want to avoid coming off as deceptive and, in turn, turning off your supporters.

What’s all this about being a fraud?
When you’re communicating, you want people to trust you, right? You don’t want them wondering if you’re legit.Turns out, there are specific cues that send a “I’m not being straight with you” message, including:

Using longer words
Using fewer unique words
Using lots of punctuation
Having lower readability
Being full of jargon

Are you making matters worse?
Based on research done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, we know that one in three Americans lack faith in charities. What if you’re sending out those “I’m not being straight with you” cues without even knowing it?

From the Wordifier research, we know one thing that’s definitely making matters worse: on average nonprofits only use 810 unique words on their websites. That’s a mere .03% of the words available in the English language. Does the miniscule number of words nonprofits use reinforce mistrust? As a sector, could we increase donors’ faith in charities by increasing the number of unique words we use?

So what can you do to increase trust?

Use proper punctuation. Here are some tips from Harvard College if you’re murky on punctuation. Grammarly is also an excellent resource on all things grammar.
Use shorter words: Thsrs is a great tool for shortening up your words. As is the Hemingway Editor.
Use a wider variety of words: The Wordifier can help you with this.
Use serial commas: Okay, nothing in the research I’m citing says anything about this, but it’s always a good idea. Here’s why.
Increase your readability: Turn on the Readability statistics in Word or use a tool like this one.
Avoid jargon: The Chronicle of Philanthropy just ran a super article on jargon eradication. (Disclaimer: I’m quoted in this piece.)

Want a deeper dive?
Check out this report and this one for text analysis of fraudulent writing.

Also think about signing up for Claxon University–home of clear and compelling communication that raises awareness, increases donations, and does more good in the world!

If you use ‘if,’ then…

May 4, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

The One Thing You Need to Know: If you want to achieve your goals, then use the words if and then. (See what I did there? Neat, eh?)

What Works?

Last week, we talked about multi-objective optimization–a concept and term that can give even the sharpest social sector trailblazers a brain cramp. So this week, I wanted to give you something that you could instantly and easily use!

This week, we’re focusing on you, you, you. Can you apply this research to your organization? Likely, yes. But this is meant to make your life easier, happier, and more fulfilling.

Here goes.

Studies have identified a ridiculously easy way to increase your chances of success by roughly 300%. (Oh yeaaaaah.)

In her book, 9 Things Successful People Do Differently (a petit book that packs a big punch), Heidi Grant Halvorson advises that you decide in advance on when, specifically, you will achieve your goals. The in advance part is key. And that’s where ‘if’ and ‘then’ come in.

For instance:

If it is 11:30 on a Tuesday or Thursday, then I will go for a 30-minute walk.

If I drink a cup of coffee in the morning, then I will drink a glass of water as well.

If it is 8pm on Sunday, then I will call my parents.

If you really want some goal-achieving magic to happen, put these things on your calendar.

That’s it. Nothing this week on what doesn’t work. Just what does work.

Want more?

If you want to read about the other eight things that successful people do differently but you don’t want to commit to buying the book, then read Halvorson’s Harvard Business Review article.

Hat tip to the magnificent Eric Barker at Barking up the Wrong Tree for putting this research on our radar.

Tackling Tough Trade-offs

April 21, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

The One Thing You Need to Know: If you want your messaging to work, get super clear on for whom and for what you are optimizing.

What Works?

With the Claxon Method, we encourage organizations to identify one organizational goal and then, based on that, one marketing objective. This clarity of focus allows you to optimize your little heart out.

But sometimes, you have two or more objectives you have to take into account. What do you do then? You do a little thing called multi-objective optimization. (Scary term, I know. But not a scary concept AND extremely useful. Stick with me.)

Even if you don’t know the term, you have experienced multi-objective optimization first-hand. Multi-objective optimization simply means making the best decision when faced with two or more conflicting objectives.

For social sector organizations, you might recall Sharon Oster, in her 1995 book Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations (chapter 7 on product mix and pricing), talking about a Product Portfolio Map, and suggesting you plot different programs according to contribution to mission and contribution to economic viability. It was a ground-breaking way to look at the dilemma of the double bottom line. Although she didn’t use the term, she was suggesting you do multi-objective optimization.

This type of analysis isn’t limited to the trade-off between mission and revenue, however. You may need to optimize your website for two different audiences or encourage your supporters to both donate and volunteer. Or maybe you’re like NPR and need to figure out whether short or long Facebook post works best.

Real-world example: NPR wondered what length of Facebook post worked best for them. Initially, their stated objective was driving traffic to their site. So they were looking at click-thru rate. Fair ‘nuff.

But their mission is to “…create a more informed public — one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.” That got them wondering: isn’t it possible that someone could learn just as much from a longer post even if they didn’t go to the site to learn more?

And just like that, NPR had two objectives for which they were optimizing: click-through rates and ‘show more’ clicks on longer posts. But rather than say which one really was more important, they mushed things together and came up with an “adjusted click-thru rate”.

After the mushing, they decided they should do more posts that are under 120 characters, but still do some longer posts now and again. This is a fine decision if click-thru is their tippy top priority. If people learning is their tippy top priority, then the longer posts might be the better way to go. Either way, the question is: what’s the trade-off between longer and shorter posts?

Bottom Line:

We live in a world of trade-offs. Keep your objectives prioritized. If you have to re-write your website and get an annual report out the door, that’s a lot of words to crank out (trust me, I’ve been there!). What’s the trade-off between spending more time one over the other? How much are you willing to sacrifice on the annual report in order to write dazzling website copy? Or vice-versa.

Often, a chart is the easiest way to see where you want to land. If we plot the NPR example, it looks like this:

npr trade offs title.png

Want more?

If we had had NPR’s raw data, we would’ve created a 3D plot. Cuz those are super fly! If you want to create a super cool 3D plot of your own, check out the spiffy Plot.ly. If that sounds scary BUT you still want to know what length your posts should be, or figure out how to optimize your words for another set of competing priorities, hire us. We like this stuff.

Should you ask people to “help” or “give”?

April 7, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

********************

Should you ask people to “help” or “give”?

The One Thing You Need to Know: People like to help rather than give. Frame your requests with this in mind.

What Works?

The Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago looked at whether people preferred to “help” or “give”. They had two groups of people. Both groups were asked to imagine that they worked a job as a street vendor who sells popsicles. (Why popsicles, we don’t know. Maybe they were also trying to see what people really would do for a Klondike bar!)

Okay, so one group was then asked if they would donate the equivalent of a day’s wage. Another group was asked if they would volunteer for a day, and then told they could work their regular job selling popsicles and donate what they earned.

Turns out, the idea of “volunteering” for a day was much more enticing than donating the equivalent of a day’s wages.

Why? The authors propose that when the ask is initially framed in terms of money, it prompts people to think about what they are giving up. Framing in terms of helping prompts people to think about the impact of their assistance, which they are happy to offer.

This is consistent with research on loss aversion, i.e. we are more unhappy about losses than we are happy about gains. In this scenario, giving up money is a loss and the warm feelings we get from benefiting an organization we care about is a gain. Be careful about which side of that balance you draw attention.

Bottom Line: If you want people to give, ask them to help.

Future research we’d love to see

A real-world test so we have a better sense of what happens when people envision their actual wages vs. hypothetical wages. The success of the organization One Day’s Wages would lead one to believe that people can get behind the idea of giving a day’s worth of wages. But it might still be true that language that uses “help” is more effective than “give”.
Research (again, real-world) on the effectiveness of starting with “help” and then switching to “give”. Can you switch or do you have to stick with helping language throughout? Inquiring, inquisitive minds want to know!

Want more?

Peruse the paper that we’re citing here. Sending out a spring appeal? Test this for yourself. Do two versions of your appeal: one using “give” language and one using “help” language. A/B test on 10% of your list and then use whichever version works best. If that sounds daunting, we love testing and are here to help!

Researched for you: Unit-Asking [Language Lab]

March 31, 2016 by Erica Barnhart

*****************

What is Unit-Asking?

The One Thing You Need to Know: Ask donors how much they would give to help one individual and then ask how much they would give to help a larger number.

What works?

You’ve heard about the power of the Story of One. But have you heard of the Power of Unit-Asking ? Here’s an example of how it works:

Start by telling the story of Monica, a struggling reader currently in fourth grader.
Describe in detail how their donation could turn Monica into a great reader through peer tutoring.
Ask how much they are willing to invest in Monica’s future.
Then explain that that Monica is not alone. She is one of many. (Describe how many.)
Then ask how much they are willing to invest in the futures of kids just like Monica.

That jump from one to many is called unit-asking. And it works like a charm.

What doesn’t work?

Telling the donor out of the gate that there are thousands of struggling readers. Nope, that makes the donor’s brain shut down because it sends the message that this problem is so big their donation won’t be able to make a dent.

Want more?

Here’s a cool inforgraphic on unit-asking and a link to the original research paper from whence the above info was gleaned. If you want help trying out unit-asking in your next appeal, just hit reply to this email.