The lost donation

It’s crazy that having successfully inspired someone to give to charity, you’d sacrifice their donation to shoddy user experience. But according to UX specialist Nomensa, 47% of people who visit a website intending to make a donation don’t get to the end of the process.

Why is it that such abysmal conversion rates are so readily tolerated? It may be lack of understanding about UX or digital, limited focus on measurement and analytics, or perhaps a cultural tendency to invest in 'visible' fundraising activities versus supposedly frivolous spending on a website.

But perhaps we also overestimate the power of our own intentions.

It is an uncomfortable fact that having felt a rush of empathy for someone suffering and made the decision to give, a few extra clicks of the mouse can be enough to prevent us. Thinking about it rationally, there’s no way the mental effort caused by unintuitive design, for example, should figure. Yet our response isn’t a conscious, deliberate one – it’s the result of mental processes beneath our awareness.


On the flip-side, SMS shows the benefits of a behaviour-led approach. Not only does it allow instant, spontaneous donation in any context and without the need for registration, but it relies on a habitual process that comes effortlessly to most people. During the Haiti crisis, one in five American donors gave via text, as did 20% of Comic Relief supporters in 2011 – and an increasing number of charities have followed suit.


Removing barriers to action through better websites and other mediums makes intuitive sense. But the insights of behavioural economics go far beyond this – and uncover just how surprising and fluid human altruism can be.

Charities who wake up to the potential of fields like JDM (Judgement and Decision-Making) will take donors' psychological and behavioural needs as seriously as their heartfelt intentions.

The language of sustainability

Recent contact with organisations like ThinkFutureNow and Bristol Green Capital has certainly helped to crystallise PrimeDecision’s commitment to sustainability. But although our intention to run a green business feels strong and genuine, we are conscious of how vulnerable we all are to contextual influence. Surrounded by sustainability professionals at an event like Communicate, it is easy to be swept along by others’ commitment and enthusiasm. But in everyday life, sometimes the smallest things can deter or drive sustainable behaviour. To create meaningful change, we need to use these factors to our advantage – and be honest about how fallible we humans are.


We found a lovely example of how language can impact green behaviour when visiting Schumacher College. Naturally they place a lot of emphasis on recycling – and have a range of bins for cardboard, cartons, glass, aluminium, compost etc. Now although few people would disagree overtly with the idea of recycling, in the midst of a busy day it can often seem easier to use the general rubbish bin instead. Throwing rubbish into a bin is such a familiar and automatic action. Yet instead of calling it ‘general waste’ or ‘the bin’, Schumacher bluntly labels their bins: ‘Landfill’. Through simple reframing, it disrupts that familiar action and makes the environmental impact so much more apparent. It seemed to us a fantastic antidote for everyday laziness.

We don’t currently have evidence quantifying the impact of this particular change, or the means to encourage the spread of this practice. But it is important that we, and other organisations, take the time to do so. For although seemingly minor, these little cues can have a huge impact on our ability to adopt the sustainable behaviours that we wish for.