How “chip in” language affects recurring donations
Timeframe: 3/20/2020 - 3/26/2020
LifeSite’s spring campaign began right as the corona virus pandemic started to unfold. So we wanted to test a smaller gift ask that would seem manageable as the economy began to decline, but that would still provide LifeSit with a long-term revenue stream.
Does “chip in” language and a smaller gift array lead to higher recurring conversions? And does it decrease average recurring gift amount?
|Treatment Name||Conv. Rate||Relative Difference||Confidence|
|T1:||Chip in language with smaller recurring array||0.04%||85.7%||90.5%|
This experiment has a required sample size of 62,853 in order to be valid. Since the experiment had a total sample size of 91,855, and the level of confidence is not above 95% the experiment results are not valid.
What we found was that the language did lead to more recurring gifts, and actually did not decrease the average recurring gift amount. The control ask was a monthly gift of $25, but the average gift was a little over $13. While the test gift array gave an option of smaller gift amounts—$5, $10, $15—, and the average gift amount for the test was over $14. As this was slightly shy of validating, we will continue to test this concept in other asks and medium.
Kevin is the Chief Technology Officer at NextAfter. If you have any questions about this experiment or would like additional details not discussed above, please feel free to contact them directly.
Question about experiment #6517
If you have any questions about this experiment or would like additional details not discussed above, please feel free to contact them directly.