The identifiable victim effect and drop in the bucket effect would apply in a similar fashion. However, while this may seem obvious, I want to be super-clear and add the caveat to remember to also apply the strategy of learning about your audience. For instance, advocacy targeting political officials would be quite different from advocacy targeting the public more broadly.
The approaches would be different. As an example, if you want to convince a politician to direct money toward a cause that suffers from the “drop in the bucket effect,” provide her/him with talking points and stories s/he can use to communicate this to her/his constituents, as opposed to trying to use stories to convince the actual politician.
Peter, if you have some additional perspectives on this topic, please jump in.
Great, thanks for your and Peter’s comments. My guess would also be that these things are more helpful for getting specific actions by people who already agree (e.g. getting people to become advocates) than persuasion since in the context of charitable giving most people are already persuaded it’s a good idea.
Yup, these things are helpful from moving people from agreeing in the abstract—thinking it’s a good idea—to taking active steps to help, namely donating their money, time, expertise, social capital, etc.
Glad you like the piece!
The identifiable victim effect and drop in the bucket effect would apply in a similar fashion. However, while this may seem obvious, I want to be super-clear and add the caveat to remember to also apply the strategy of learning about your audience. For instance, advocacy targeting political officials would be quite different from advocacy targeting the public more broadly.
The approaches would be different. As an example, if you want to convince a politician to direct money toward a cause that suffers from the “drop in the bucket effect,” provide her/him with talking points and stories s/he can use to communicate this to her/his constituents, as opposed to trying to use stories to convince the actual politician.
Peter, if you have some additional perspectives on this topic, please jump in.
Great, thanks for your and Peter’s comments. My guess would also be that these things are more helpful for getting specific actions by people who already agree (e.g. getting people to become advocates) than persuasion since in the context of charitable giving most people are already persuaded it’s a good idea.
Yup, these things are helpful from moving people from agreeing in the abstract—thinking it’s a good idea—to taking active steps to help, namely donating their money, time, expertise, social capital, etc.