Organize Blog

Sometimes Jenna and I do some pretty dumb stuff.


Fortunately for you, we‘re sharing everything along the way so you don‘t have to make the same mistakes. As we ramp up our donor registration campaigns, we‘re committing to blogging after each one to share all our lessons learned.

On December 1, ORGANIZE launched a major donor registration drive for Giving Tuesday and had over 1,000 registrations. More importantly for you, we structured the entire campaign as a series of A/B tests in collaboration with Dan Ariely (Duke) andJudd Kessler (Wharton) to learn (and share!) key insights.

We had various partners send out a “Register Here” link. Some were corporations emailing it to their employees, some were corporations emailing it to their customers, some were corporations posting it on social media, and some were celebrities or influencers posting on social media.

Here are some of the most interesting things we learned:

• It matters how you‘re asked to register.

⚬ Email was by far the most effective channel. People receiving an email were between 13 and 23 times more likely to register than people who viewed the same content over social media.

• It may matter even more who sends you the email.

⚬ When receiving the email from your employer (or a trusted friend), 70% of people who started the registration process actually finish it. When receiving the email from a brand (whose email blasts they opted in to, but for which they do not work), only 17.5% of people who started the registration process completed it.

• Especially if the sender has some connection to organ donation.

⚬ For employer-to-employee emails, people were 17% more likely to register when the company had a connection to the topic than when they didn‘t (e.g. a hospital vs. a tech start-up). This may be true for various reasons, including that the employer is viewed as a more credible (and therefore trustworthy) ambassador for the registration-ask, as well as that people who work at hospitals are just generally more interested in and sympathetic to this kind of ask than people who work in other industries.

• When people start the registration process but don‘t finish it, it is not random where they drop off.

⚬ 68% of the total drop-off was at the first page. This is not entirely unexpected, as some of the people who visited may not really have been planning to register in the first place, but rather just “checking things out”. An example of this would be someone who is already registered and loves organ donation and just wanted to see what the campaign was all about. Presumably this wasn‘t true of all of the drop-off at the first page, but we have no way of knowing for sure why individuals chose to drop off at this page.

⚬ Once someone starts the registration process, there are a couple main factors that cause them to drop-off. Firstly, the registration process is waayyy toooo long. Drop-off on the first couple of pages was very low, but then once the process drags on, people lose steam. More specifically, 83% of the total drop-off occurred on page 3 or beyond (note: because we register people in every state, and each state has its own unique registration process, we can‘t exactly compare apples-to-apples what happened in each state; that is, the 4th page someone sees during their registration in Idaho, for example, won‘t be the same as 4th page in Alabama).

⚬ One consistent theme, though, was that the biggest drop-off occurred when the registrant is asked for the last 4 digits of their social security number. In fact, this accounted for 35% of the total drop-offs. This is particularly interesting because the UAGA doesn‘t require a social security number for a donor registration; it is simply used as a mechanism for verifying someone‘s identity. Given that it causes so much (artificial) drop-off in organ donation rates, perhaps there are other more creative ways we can all consider for identity verification that do not necessitate the use of social security number.

• But the silver lining is that there may be some ways we can mitigate the problem.

⚬ One of our partners, OPower, a utilities company, ran their campaign as an A/B test. Half of their employees saw the first email, and half saw the second.


Notice that the only difference is that the picture on the right includes language that “95% of Americans support organ donation”. Seems like a subtle difference, right? It turns out to have a wildly important impact. Each link reached the same number of employees, and, for each link, 22 people began the registration process. For email #1, only 5 people completed their registration (23%); for email #2, 17 people (77%) completed their registration. That is an ENORMOUS impact for such a small and subtle tweak to the campaign.

• People were eager to share their wishes with their next of kin when given the option.

⚬ When someone finished the registration process, they were presented with this option to email their of kin,


and 64% of people sent the email (including with modifications – most minor). Perhaps interestingly, 96% of those people only sent the email to 1 person rather than multiple people. It may be helpful as a go-forward for us to encourage them to send to multiple people, or at least to encourage them to be very thoughtful about which 1 person they want to share this with.

If you‘re reading this blog, we‘re guessing you‘re the sort of person who cares about organ donation and might run your own registration campaign soon. If you have ideas you‘d like us to test for you, want to partner with us, want to dive deeper into any of our data, or even just want to share your own learnings / best practices with us – please don‘t hesitate! Drop us a line at [email protected]