Donor acquisition - Agitator

Breaking Out of the Status Quo

Segmenting “Cost To Acquire” Using Identity

A couple months ago, I argued that cost to acquire (CTA) was one of only two metrics that matter in a deep, comprehensive way. (The other one, for those who like spoilers, was donor lifetime value.) And yet, CTA can lie. If one acquisition mail package has a response rate of 1.1% and an average […]

Learn More March 22, 2018

Level Three Feedback: Using Feedback to Model

You had an acquisition package that beat your control like the control owed it money. Turns out that putting in a coin and a notepad and address labels and a back-end premium in that package really increased response rate! You have a new control! Fast forward a year. Your donor file isn’t growing the way […]

Learn More March 9, 2018

Peer-to-Peer Fundraisers: Don’t Run. Dash!

I mean it. Dash right over to Amazon, click and order Dollar Dash: The Behavioral Economics of Peer-to-Peer Fundraising , a practical and powerful guide to the psychology behind P2P fundraising and the factors that drive donors and volunteers with plenty of case studies. In fact, even if you don’t give one whit about peer-to-peer […]

Learn More February 26, 2018

Explaining Abstract Numerical Concepts–Like “Eleven”– To Your Boss

Any discussion of metrics in The Agitator must include a nod to “The Curse of Fundraising Innumeracy” about an Agitator reader who tried to keep a straight face when someone said they had a 95% retention rate. And clearly there is a problem when otherwise smart people with big budgets don’t “do” numbers. But I’d like […]

Learn More January 22, 2018

The Two Fundraising Metrics That Matter Most

Tomorrow, we’ll talk about those metrics you should eliminate with extreme prejudice. So it’s only fitting that we should talk about those metrics you’ll want to embrace and socialize in your organization – Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) . First, I should mention that DonorTrends is offering Agitator readers a free test drive of their excellent […]

Learn More January 17, 2018

#RE-GIFTING MONDAY

#RE-GIFTING MONDAY marks the kickoff of an unknown two-week holiday seen only on The Agitator’s editorial calendar. It’s unlike the seasonal “re-gifting” process where folks pass along gifts they’ve previously received ( ugly sweaters, a vase from a distant aunt, the silk tie or scarf that doesn’t match anything in your wardrobe). With Agitator Re-gifting we’re […]

Learn More December 18, 2017

What to Listen for in Donor Onboarding

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” ― Stephen R. Covey In the previous on boarding post I emphasized the imperative to listen as soon as possible. But that brings up the question: listen for what? There are several variables that, when learned from donors during the […]

Learn More December 13, 2017

Onboarding: The Fierce Urgency of Listening

The unofficial motto of Seinfeld, according to Larry David, was “No hugging, no learning.” In short, there would be no growth in relationships and characters. (For the young’un’s, Seinfeld was a 90s observational comedy show from that guy who talks to comedians in cars while drinking coffee, the titular Veep, and some other people.) Because we […]

Learn More December 12, 2017

The Most Important Step in Donor Acquisition

#Giving Tuesday 2017 is now in the rearview mirror. So, we’ll be using this week to explore the proper onboarding of new donors from that event and the overall importance of proper onboarding generally. First, a brief reprise of #GivingTuesday that you might want to bookmark in thinking about that event next year. In Thank […]

Learn More December 11, 2017

Yikes … Fundraisers Make Way For Marketers!

Here’s the NY Times headline that caught my attention: To Sell Themselves to Donors, Nonprofits Are Turning to the Pros. Wow! I thought … I’m about to find some real breakthrough thinking. Can’t wait to see who are these “pros” are? Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that nonprofits can communicate in ways that obscure […]

Learn More September 26, 2017

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

Q: As a designer who works with non-profits on fundraising strategy, I see the language like the following: “Our supporters help empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs.” I do not think the word “help” is useful–I think “Our supporters empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs. ” is much more engaging. Thoughts?

Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]

Read Full Answer

Q: We started offering a donor cover option last april 1. The data to date suggests this may be dampening giving.eg. those who say yes to donor cover have a lower average gift (based on analysis of 6000+ gifts). I’m wondering if those who give lower gifts feel more guilt and therefore say yes to donor cover or if the presence of donor cover is making people adjust (lower) their gift size to accommodate the extra 3%. Would love any insights you have.

Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]

Read Full Answer

Q: When writing an appeal, I waffle back and forth between writing “Your gift CAN…” or “Your gift WILL…” Any studies of which of these two words is best for an appeal?

The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]

Read Full Answer

Q: Do you have any insight on whether integrating an individual giving appeal with other comms from the charity in both appearance and messaging can uplift results? Or does the actual appeal become ‘lost’ for lack of stand-out?

Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]

Read Full Answer

Q: Is there any research on response rate impact in direct mail when referring to a sustainer gift as ongoing or recurring (catching all frequencies) v. monthly or annual?

I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]

Read Full Answer

Q: A major conservation nonprofit sends me lots of mail, many of which have on the envelope “time to renew” or “2nd notice.” I find this practice deceptive, especially as I haven’t given to said organization since 1997. It must be effective or they wouldn’t do it. But is it ethical?

Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]

Read Full Answer

Breaking Out of the Status Quo

Segmenting “Cost To Acquire” Using Identity

Level Three Feedback: Using Feedback to Model

Peer-to-Peer Fundraisers: Don’t Run. Dash!

Explaining Abstract Numerical Concepts–Like “Eleven”– To Your Boss

The Two Fundraising Metrics That Matter Most

#RE-GIFTING MONDAY

What to Listen for in Donor Onboarding

Onboarding: The Fierce Urgency of Listening

The Most Important Step in Donor Acquisition

Yikes … Fundraisers Make Way For Marketers!

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

Q: When writing an appeal, I waffle back and forth between writing “Your gift CAN…” or “Your gift WILL…” Any studies of which of these two words is best for an appeal?

Q: Do you have any insight on whether integrating an individual giving appeal with other comms from the charity in both appearance and messaging can uplift results? Or does the actual appeal become ‘lost’ for lack of stand-out?

Q: Is there any research on response rate impact in direct mail when referring to a sustainer gift as ongoing or recurring (catching all frequencies) v. monthly or annual?

Q: A major conservation nonprofit sends me lots of mail, many of which have on the envelope “time to renew” or “2nd notice.” I find this practice deceptive, especially as I haven’t given to said organization since 1997. It must be effective or they wouldn’t do it. But is it ethical?

DonorVoice products

Commitment System

Donor Feedback Platform™

PreTest Tool

TouchPoint Mapping