How a time-sensitive value proposition affects conversion rate for donors
Dallas Theological Seminary
The DTS mission is, “to glorify God by equipping godly servant-leaders for the proclamation of His Word and the building up of the body of Christ worldwide.” They strive to help men and women fulfill the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, or more simply: Teach Truth. Love Well.
Experiment Summary
Timeframe: 09/09/2016 - 09/20/2016
Dallas Theological Seminary was running a fundraising campaign for North Texas Giving Day.They had previously tested into a value proposition centered around their mission: growing the kingdom. However, they wanted to test to see if a very time-sensitive specific matching challenge ask would be a greater motivator for donors and nondonors. Since the two segments had different levels of affinity and motivation, they wanted to test them separately. They created a treatment page and showed it to both donors and nondonors independently, with a 50-50 split to try to determine which value proposition was a greater motivator for this specific campaign.
Research Question
Will a matching challenge ask outperform a general value proposition ask during a time sensitive campaign for a donor segment?
Design
Results
| Treatment Name | Conv. Rate | Relative Difference | Confidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C: | Teach Truth | 8.5% | ||
| T1: | Matching Challenge | 6.5% | -23.7% | 68.0% |
This experiment has a required sample size of 1,296 in order to be valid. Unfortunately, the required sample size was not met and a level of confidence above 95% was not met so the experiment results are not valid.
Key Learnings
The treatment page produced a 23% decrease in donor conversion rate although this, like the nondonor test, was not statistically valid due to low traffic for this campaign. Because it was not statistically valid, these numbers cannot be interpreted to infer that the new value proposition was less motivating to donors. This test was closer to validity than the nondonor test, but even when combining the data from the two tests, there was not a clear winner or statistical validity.