One.  That’s the modal number of gifts per year from your one-off donors.  File averages hover around 1.6.

If you get a donor to give twice, you’re a hero. The prevailing method for earning that cape has been volume, early and often.

Consider a close encounters moment.  If an alien were told to get humans to give twice a year, would it propose 15-20 mailings and weekly email asks?  Those unindoctrinated to “best practice” are more likely to see repeat giving for what it is – mostly about motivation and habit, not exposure.

Most revenue comes from a small slice of Committed donors, high on attitudinal loyalty and with a personal connection to the mission. They have a reason to stay, their giving is purposeful, not reflexive. Think gym membership kept, retirement contributions made, recycling taken out on Tuesdays. These are behaviors that require attention and follow-through.

And yet intention fails as people procrastinate, even on things they care about. Behavioral science calls this the intention–action gap. We don’t fix that gap with more noise. We fix it by making follow-through easier and quitting harder with commitment devices, clear plans, timed cues, and honest choice.   Examples,

• StickK, is a platform helping users create behaviors.  You set a goal, stake something on it—money, reputation—and name a referee.
• National Novel Writing Month encourages new writers to put words to paper by helping them with a goal, a concrete deadline, and a community of encouragement. It attracted 431,626 participants, with more than 40,000 reaching the 50k word goal.
• CVS asked customers to choose “I will get a flu shot this fall” or “I will not,” uptake jumped. When a recorded message framed prescription refills as a choice to do it yourself or let the pharmacist do it automatically, enrollment more than doubled.

None of this is about inspiration; it’s infrastructure that raises the cost of breaking your own promise.

Charities can borrow the same scaffolding. Let donors set a giving goal for the year, in advance, and tie it to cues they already recognize: a birthday, a holiday, a work bonus, the month they first gave. Ask donors to choose:

• “Solicit me frequently and I’ll decide case by case,” or
• “I’ll give twice this year; remind me on these dates and make it one click.”
• On the first prompt of the year, ask for a choice: “I plan to give twice to support [program X/Y/Z] this year,” or “I prefer to decide ad hoc.”
• Tie reminders to the donor’s chosen cues. Keep the message short: “You asked us to remind you today. Here’s what your gift will do. One click to confirm.”
• Show a quiet progress meter: “Gift 1 of 2 completed in April; Gift 2 scheduled for October.” No confetti. Just competence.

Not a copywriting trick, a better default.  And be candid while you’re at it. We’ve run “extreme transparency” tests on permission language—plain talk about what we send, how often, and why. The straight version beats the soft-focus euphemisms. People can smell control disguised as warmth.

If folks can commit on StickK to “speak slowly to foreigners” or “no porn at work,” they can commit to generosity. The willingness to pre-commit is there. We just haven’t given donors a clear way to do it with us.

This merely requires a posture change in posture, from extracting attention to converting intention.

Giving is not fickle impulse, it’s identity enacted on a schedule.

Kevin