• Home
  • All Blog Posts
  • Behavioral Science
  • White Papers
  • Toolbox
  • Archives

About us

Roger Craver, Co-Editor, The Agitator


When I switched from being a major gifts and capital campaign fundraiser in favor of the path of direct response my colleagues thought I had gone mad. They simply couldn’t imagine why any serious fundraiser would resort to anything less than face-to-face contact with donors and prospects.

That was 45 years ago.

Today, halfway through my career, I’m more convinced than ever that direct response fundraising and marketing continues to enjoy spectacular future. Far brighter than I ever imagined in those early years when we upstarts at Craver, Mathews, Smith & Company used the direct response techniques of the day to help launch or build groups like Common Cause, The National Organization for Women, ACLU, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and dozens of other major organizations, both in the U.S. and in Europe.

A lawyer by training, a copywriter and strategist by trade, and a curious and optimistic guy by nature, I’m more convinced than ever that the best is yet to come where direct response fundraising is concerned. The only threats to our craft that truly worry me are complacency and conventional wisdom. Both jeopardize the best possible performance at a time when nonprofits will be required to perform far more and far better than they have in the past.

Ours is a trade that has grown prosperous and self-satisfied. Even for the inexperienced or just plain stupid, there is rapid advancement and substantial financial reward. Why? Because the number of available vacancies for “fundraising” positions far outstrips the available talent.

Even more worrisome in this era of rapid change is the unwillingness on the part of far too many fundraisers, CEOs and Boards to innovate, to take risks and to break new ground.

Fortunately, there is a wealth of new talent, technologies and techniques bursting on to the scene. These are the best antidotes to complacency and conventional wisdom. It’s my hope that in this space we can –together — shine the spotlight on the trends, talent, techniques and technologies that will make us all perform better tomorrow than we do today.

Afterall, the stakes for the causes and organizations we serve are simply too high to accept anything less.

Nick Ellinger, VP of Marketing Strategy, DonorVoice

The year was 2008 — the year of the financial crash — so a lot of direct marketing programs, like the one I’d just taken over at  Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), were significantly off budget.

Then it happened again a few years later. This time my faith in conventional wisdom, in budgeting projections, in the belief “they do this for a living and clearly they know more about this than I do” was shaken to its core.  It didn’t help that I was the first to notice the problem and had to persuade our consultants that we were headed for trouble.

Then and there I made a pledge to myself: the next time I missed a goal by even a penny, it would be the result of my own [expletive deleted] decisions.

Never again would I be any less the expert than anyone else in the room where plans and decisions are made. And never again would I trust the way things had always been done. All knowledge was now suspect — as it always should have been.

That’s also when I started writing about nonprofit marketing as a way to force myself to stretch. And in reading to support my writing habit, I saw cracks in the conventional wisdom that I’d accepted on blind faith.

“Conventional wisdom” was replaced by new insights like: Matches aren’t as good as overhead-covering lead gifts… Highest previous contribution is a bad place to start an ask string… File size is a pretty bad way of measuring the size of your file…. More isn’t better…Donors can give valuable feedback… Pure emotion doesn’t always win (just most of the time).

I also discovered new and helpful vistas. Neuromarketing, behavioral psychology, the economics of ask strings, online targeting methodologies – things I’d not dreamed up when getting my MBA. There was always another rabbit hole to explore, another level up or down in our fractals of knowledge.

Pretty soon, I moved to DonorVoice because they were asking (and answering) the most important questions our industry faces about why donors give (beyond the simplified answer “because we ask”).

It was in this leveling-up process that I discovered The Agitator (and other luminaries too numerous to mention or list lest I forget). It scratched me where I itched. It asked “we may be doing this right… but what if we aren’t?” And there was an actual conversation going on. As a once and future debater, I loved this ethos of steel sharpening steel.

So it’s my honor to write for the Agitator and to be a part of the discussion and the community. I hope I can give you as much as you’ve given me.  I hope to spark a thought in your mind as you have in mine. I hope that together we can raise some money for some great causes.

And mostly, I hope you never say “I agree with Nick 100%.” Even I don’t do that.

Please disagree, using your outside voice.  We’ll make each other better.

Charlie Hulme, Managing Director, DonorVoice UK

Like some of you I didn’t start out as a fundraiser. My early career was spent in sales and marketing. The money was the good, career satisfaction was bad. I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be a fundraiser.

So, I was pretty disappointed, early in my fundraising career, to find fundraisers (no matter how smart and/or conscientious) weren’t making much difference. ‘Best’ practise forced focus on bringing people in the front door (which was/is getting harder and more expensive) and hardly any on saving the enormous number leaving out the back. It felt the entire sector was running to stand still.

But the biggest disappointment was mindset. Some thought they couldn’t do anything about the problem. Others loudly preached solutions, without evidence, to the problem. Still others didn’t think there was a problem.

One agency fired me for pushing clients to test the radical hypothesis people had deeper reasons for giving than “we asked”. Another hired me to do the same thing.

During my years as creative director at the latter I helped many charities uncover rudimentary supporter identities (e.g. connection to disease or not, parent/pet owner or not etc.) Most saw lift in performance and value.

It was a step forward, but still frustrating. Largely because it remained at campaign level; never scaled to ‘journey’. Mostly because, in almost all cases, I had to struggle to get each charity to accept the basic premise. It got pretty lonely.

Then I found the Agitator. I found a community of people like you challenging the status quo. Not with empty rhetoric about being “emotional”, “donor-centric”, “insert meaningless platitude here”, but evidence.

Through the Agitator I found DonorVoice. Today I get to work with forward-thinking organizations, using a unique combination of tools and skills, to uncover why people are or would support them.

I’m proud to be a part of this community and to share with you what these charities are doing. I hope it inspires you to continue agitating for change (which is why you’re here, right?)

Tom Belford, Co-Editor Emeritus, The Agitator

Tom thumbnail

In my first job, in the founding days of Common Cause, we kept track of our members with perforated cards and activated them via phone trees!

Now of course we use sophisticated databases and online tools. But along the way, guess what, as a marketer of both issues and products, I’ve been reminded over and over of two lessons: fundamental principles of human motivation still apply, and the right solution begins with the right question.

Hopefully I’ve learned something about marketing causes and issues that you might find valuable. My checkered past includes the Carter White House, building Ted Turner’s first philanthropic organization, doing a ton of consulting for non-profits through Vanguard Communications and Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co., conceiving marketing programs for corporate clients from Time Warner Cable to Maker’s Mark bourbon to Discovery Communications, and running marketing for Environmental Defense.

Enjoy our blog … and push back!

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    Q: What are the types of survey questions I could ask that would reveal donor identity?

    The questions depend on the cause. Different identities will explain giving to a health charity (connection to disease), different to a conservationist charity (environmentalist) and different to a university (alumnus/a). Even for the same cause, there may be various identities that can explain giving. For example, someone might give to a cancer charity because they’re […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: Is there research showing the effectiveness of publicly stating a goal for a fundraising campaign or event? We often hear arguments both for and against from fundraisers we work with. On the one hand, some believe a goal creates excitement and interest in collectively working (donating) to reach that goal. On the other, some will say once the goal is reached, (potential) donors will think their dollars aren’t needed and not give. Is the key in the messaging (there is always more to be done) more so than the statement of the goal itself?

    There’s evidence (see this paper and this one) that people are more motivated to give when there’s a target, provided we’re close at reaching it. Once a certain level has been exceeded e.g. 75%-80%, donations start pouring in. It’s an indirect measure of social proof – it means many people gave – but also of […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: Question about premiums. I read Kiki’s article from May 8 about rewards, and my primary take-away is that I should thank my donors verbally with sincere appreciation and gratitude. And make sure they see the impact of their gifts. But my organization has been giving a premium to donors of $1,000 and up for quite a few years. I want to stop the practice because I think it’s expensive and shallow. But the founders feel strongly about it, and a few of their good friends that are in that group realllly love the cookies we send them. How can I convince the founders that we can do something different that is more meaningful, and transition away from this meaningless gift in a gentle way?

    First of all, it makes a difference if a premium is contingent to the donation or not. Sending an item after a donation has been made without having mentioned it to the supporters beforehand is different to telling them they’ll receive an item if they make a donation. The first is a thank-you gift, which, […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: Is there any evidence that referring to donors as “members” versus “friends” or even just “donors” makes a difference? I’m not talking about benefits or voting rights, just the word itself. Does it feel unnecessarily exclusive, when everyone else is focusing on inclusivity?

    Before we look at the differences between “donor” and “member”, let’s take a step back. There’s evidence that using nouns e.g. “helper” instead of verbs e.g. “help” leads to an increase of the behaviour described by the noun, in this case helping behaviour. The theory behind this is that nouns signal a fixed identity or […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: I was wondering about the order of telling a story to a potential new funder. It seems to me (though happy to be corrected!) the key elements are broadly 1) introducing your charity 2) explaining the need 3) explaining your response to that need 4) providing a personal story 5) making a financial ask. These elements vary between the factual, emotional, negative (need) and positive (response) and so is there a natural order that will most likely lead to a positive outcome? Additionally would this order differ for different audiences eg grant giving foundations, corporate supporters, individuals? Thanks again

    I wish I had a simple answer and a set-in-stone order for all fundraising pitches. Unfortunately, there are different factors at play that should determine not just the order but also the content itself. You ask if a different order needs to be used for foundations, corporate and individual supporters. In my view, a different […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: I work for a land conservation organization. One of our biggest hurdles is that many people believe that the 2% transfer tax they paid when buying their home goes to our organization instead of to the County. Our messaging (on basically everything) is: “The Peconic Land Trust does not collect or distribute funds from the 2% real estate transfer tax. . .” I read somewhere that having that negative association actually perpetuates the misconception rather than eliminating it. Can you point me towards that research? I’m trying to convince my marketing people that we need to tell people where our funding comes from, instead of telling them where it doesn’t come from.

    It’s true that in some cases, efforts to correct a misconception result in the opposite e.g. this study showing how trying to correct unsubstantiated beliefs about politics had a “backfire effect” in some instances: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf. So it might not always happen and it might not happen to everyone but the risk is there. The other […]

    Read Full Answer

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including:



      • © Copyright 2005 - 2021, The Agitator. All Rights Reserved.
      • About Us
      • Privacy Policy
      • Sitemap
      • RSS Feed
      • We welcome your feedback!