Cause Fatigue: Reality or Myth?

by on May 23, 2011 in Uncategorized

The phrase is everywhere in our cause world: cause fatigue. It seems logical to assume that people are getting tired of causes in general;we are drowning in requests for attention, time and money.

Or are we?

Is cause fatigue a real phenomenon or an assumption by the causerati (just made that up, you get the idea). I’m tired of all the requests, but perhaps that’s because my Inbox is stuffed not only with my personal cause requests but with press releases from dozens more.

Here is a for instance of what I’m talking about. I just read this article about an interesting survey of the different ways that men and women view causes online. I’m reading along. It all makes sense, women are interested in supporting childhood obesity more than men, men are interested in global warming and the Tea Party. But then, nearer the end of the article, this point is made:

“They also say that clicking “like” for a cause on Facebook doesn’t really mean anything and contributes to “cause fatigue” brought on by the rampant use of social media.”

What the data from the study highlighted beneath this quote actually asks about is whether email from causes can sometimes feel like spam (75% say yes) and whether you get too many email from causes and if “liking” a cause on Facebook has any real meaning.  A little less than half of the respondents said yes to the last two questions.  These three responses taken together add up to “cause fatigue” by the analyzer of the data.

Is that true? Is this how we are defining”cause fatigue”? If email is spammy, but people keep giving mainly by email, is that fatigue. If slightly more than half of the respondents seem to feel that “liking” a cause on Facebook has some meaning, is that also an indicator of “cause fatigue”.

(BTW, when I Googled “cause fatigue” the most relevant finding was the reflection paper Beth and I wrote for the Case Foundation on America’s Giving Challenge. It’s always disappointing when looking for something new turns into looking in the mirror!)

One problem I see with measuring “cause fatigue” is how to figure out what didn’t happen because of it. It’s like measuring prevention programs – how many girls would have gotten pregnant if not for our intervention? There’s no way to  know. And even if we do measure it, how do we know it’s a bad thing? And the presumption in this analysis is also that social media is causing “cause fatigue”, is that true? Maybe people have to get tired of causes before they really pay attention? More questions than answers here, which, in my mind, always means there is something potentially interesting going on here.

Share

About Allison Fine

View all posts by Allison Fine →
  • http://www.futurefundraisingnow.com/ Jeff Brooks

    I don’t think there’s any such thing as cause fatigue. But there is irrelevant fundraising fatigue. Getting our causes to the right people and making them compelling is OUR job. When we fail at it, we shouldn’t blame that on the audiences we’ve failed to motivate.

  • Adam Coyne

    I think there are two related issues that muddy the proverbial waters around cause fatigue. The first is one you’ve posted on many times, which is “issue fatigue.” I find this phenomenon very real. It’s why I may now donate to multiple sclerosis and Heifer Intl., as opposed to donating to muscular dystrophy and Sally Struthers 15 years ago. We want our precious dollars to have impact, and we often move on to a newer issue after seieng a previous problem diminish or remain static – particularly when we don’t have a personal connection. To me, this is different and unrelated to cause fatigue.

    The second issue has to do with cause filtering. There’s a lower point of entry for causes to reach out and for us to support them (assuming a facebook ‘like’ counts as support). At the same time, it’s harder to distinguish legitimate organizations and differentiate multiple organizations working on similar issues. For example, along with many of your readers I struggled with where to donate beyond the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders when the Tsunami hit Indonesia, earthquakes devastated Haiti and Japan, and tornadoes hit here at home. Faced with this information firehose, the easy response can be to shut down and stop filtering. So yes, I think people are becoming less responsive to the barrage of information. But I do not think that’s a good definition of cause fatigue. We’ve become inured to the plea, not to the cause or the need.

    I think the real problem is that we need better communications (and storytelling), and more targeted sharing of information. Just because there’s not a hard cost to e-mail 10,000 vs. 100, doesn’t mean there isn’t a soft cost to our organization … and maybe even issue.

  • Jon Hardie

    Allison, If NPO’s persist in blind list buying, and blind push marketing monologues AT prospective recipients … and tolerate (and are even ecstatic with) a 2% conversion rate for outcomes … they are denying the horrific damage done to the larger pool of donors and supporters,the reality that 98% of the rest of their recipients are receiving spam &fertilizer – ie what they explicitly don’t want, don’t need and don’t value.

    By consciously choosing (because of the low threshold cost of entry – and because they just don’t give a damn) not to engage in building and sustaining a personal relationships, transparently, authentically and passionately – via responsive listening – and consequently delivering real value in every transaction – they create a toxic NPO cause marketing medium – for all of us.

    Note:see HBR on responsively sending the “Perfect Message at The Perfect Moment” over the trajectory of their relationship with their supporters from the point of first contact to their bequest at the end)

    The problem isn’t cause marketing as in “Run quickly Chicken Litte said the sky is falling in on cause marketing”- it’s the pervasive persistent execution of irresponsible cause marketing that’s the culprit.. I am reminded of the person who said “The wind blows because the trees shake” … and who has never been to the the arctic.

    The folks doing the most damage to cause marketing are invariably the ones who are most abusive – and are invariably the first to blame the tools for their poor results
    …. and not their predatory behavior!

  • TF White

    I do not believe in ’cause fatigue’ either, What we see, when donors leave our ranks, is Consumer Shift.

    All of us enjoy certain brands, products and causes for varying lengths of time. When we are introduced to a better value proposition from a new brand, or product, or cause, then we try it. If we like it we leave the old product for the new.

    It doesn’t mean we dislike the old product, we’ve simply found a better value elsewhere. Something that fits our needs, and our goals, at a given point in our lives.

    For me, as a 20-something it was all about the arts. I supported arts causes above all else. Twenty years later, while I still pratonize the arts, they rarely receive my philanthropic dollars. I’m not “fatigued” by arts causes, I’ve simply shifted my attention to a need that fits my values. (or is it a value that fits my needs?)

    Great post, Allison.

  • http://www.ventureneer.com Geri Stengel

    I think specific causes can bring on fatigue whether with endless emails or with that “Thank you for your contribution” letter that comes with a request for another contribution. Development managers need to use common sense. What do they want to see in their inbox and how often?

  • Pingback: Wild Woman Fundraising » Blog Archive » Want some good reads? Here’s what I’ve been reading this week. » Wild Woman Fundraising

UA-4810747-1