Donor acquisition - Agitator

Behavioral Science Posts

How Do We Get the Damn Envelope Opened?

It is as true as it is unhelpful to note that the outer envelope (OE) must be opened before someone can pay attention to the insides and send back the reply form or not (almost always, not…). There is certainly a lot of envelope testing done, no disputing that. But, is there any theory guiding […]

Learn More August 10, 2020

In Their Own Words: Satisfaction and Frustration in the Donor Experience

When donors have their psychological needs satisfied, they’re more likely to give and keep giving because they’ll really want to. We previously talked about donors’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. As a quick refresher: autonomy refers to feelings of choice and volition; competence to feelings of making a positive difference, and relatedness […]

Learn More August 7, 2020

Donor Acquisition in the Pandemic

In the midst of the economic uncertainty around the pandemic my guess is there will more than the usual furor over “high costs of fundraising” and spending money on acquisition on the part of boards, CFOs and CEOs. One thing won’t change: the discussion and debate will stem mostly from ignorance Ignorance about what “acquisition” […]

Learn More July 22, 2020

Fundraising Data- Part 2: The Need for Processing Speed

The Agitator has many helpful posts about how to effectively onboard donors, what to learn from them, how to thank donors, and what that post-acquisition journey should look like. BUT…all this good advice is for naught if you don’t have fast or timely data systems. Effective thank you’s, effective donor journeys, and effective retention all hinge […]

Learn More March 11, 2020

Finding the Real Donor-Centric Unicorn

Why do donors give? And how do we build our segmentation and “journeys” around who they are and why they give? If we need or want a label to guide us, and of course most of us do, enter the elusive term “donor-centric”. This is our sector’s magic unicorn that is rarely seen and yet, […]

Learn More January 24, 2020

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Intangibles

For our viewers joining the program already in progress, for the past two posts (here and here), Betty (arguing in favor of better donors over more donors) and Mo (arguing in favor of more donors over better donors) have been debating. Today, the final round of the debate: intangibles. Mo: The implications of focusing on […]

Learn More January 17, 2020

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Long-term and External Benefits

To review, in our Monday post Betty (arguing in favor of better donors over more donors) won a slight victory over Mo (arguing in favor of more donors over better donors) in talking about costs of fundraising. Today, they will debate again: this time on the topic of external benefits of donors. Mo: The case here […]

Learn More January 14, 2020

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Cost of Fundraising

In our Science of Ask Strings white paper, we talk about the importance of knowing whether you want more donors or higher-value donors. After all, the decision about how much to ask for should be predicated on how much risk you are willing to undertake to get a higher average gift. But this is a […]

Learn More January 13, 2020

Audience Building Outside of Google and Facebook

So far this week we’ve painted a darkening picture on how to build your audience with the Goofle and Facebook behemoths.. How about some good news and some good places to build your audience? A few thoughts: Twitter. Last year, Facebook eliminated a decent amount of third-party data from ad targeting (likely because they had […]

Learn More November 8, 2019

Audience Building and Facebook

There are a few big reasons, as with Google, why the initial gold rush window with Facebook is closing. Replaced organic reach. We know that organic reach on Facebook is nearly non-existent – instead it’s pay-to-play. We noted this in our constituent acquisition white paper and the big brands are acting on it. There are […]

Learn More November 6, 2019

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

Behavioral Science Posts

How Do We Get the Damn Envelope Opened?

In Their Own Words: Satisfaction and Frustration in the Donor Experience

Donor Acquisition in the Pandemic

Fundraising Data- Part 2: The Need for Processing Speed

Finding the Real Donor-Centric Unicorn

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Intangibles

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Long-term and External Benefits

More Donors Vs. Better Donors: Cost of Fundraising

Audience Building Outside of Google and Facebook

Audience Building and Facebook

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