Donor acquisition - Agitator

Advocacy Fundraising

Learning from Politics: Chip In Change for Change

You’ve seen the headlines: “Americans more divided than ever”, “Gridlock reaching threat level crimson, which is worse than red somehow”, and “Pelosi-McConnell West-Side-Story-style dancing knife fight leaves two dead; four injured.” The two major parties here in the United States seemingly can’t agree on anything. But here’s a ray of hope. They can agree on […]

Learn More October 3, 2018

TEST RESULTS: You Raise More Money When You Listen to Donors’ Preferences

We know that, given the options, many donors would give more if they could direct where their gift went (see, for example, here and here). Yet restricted giving is a giant pain for most fundraisers. You could end up in your finance department explaining yourself for the rest of your natural life (and some of […]

Learn More August 23, 2018

TEST RESULTS: External Validators Are Vitally Important–Except When They Aren’t

We’re looking at external validators – seals and such – in our week-long series on how to frame overhead and impact. These validators were the second most important factors to get right, lagging only how overhead is presented (which we covered yesterday) In the DonorVoice study with the DMA Nonprofit Federation, we looked at five […]

Learn More August 22, 2018

TEST RESULTS: Donors Care About Their Impact, Not Your Overhead

A significant factor in the donor’s decision to give rests in how s/he answers the question, “how am I going to feel if I make this gift?” So, the job of the fundraiser is to determine how those factors under an organization’s control can be most effectively presented. One major set of issues involve those […]

Learn More August 20, 2018

Beware the Mismatched Incentives Between You and Your Canvassing Firm

A few weeks ago, Kevin Schulman here ignited a firestorm by suggesting a F2F model where the canvassing vendor does some or all the financing for this new donor acquisition. There were some well-thought-out concerns about the history of financing acquisition and about the viability in today’s marketing. Regardless of on which side of that […]

Learn More July 12, 2018

Pairing metrics for fun and (non)profit

On Tuesday, I talked about how Simpson’s paradox means you shouldn’t use just overall retention as a metric. Rather, you want to pair it with subgroup metrics so someone doesn’t achieve their retention goals by cutting off acquisition. I’ll generalize from that. As Newton would have said if he were a direct marketer, each metric […]

Learn More June 22, 2018

What the Simpsons Can Teach Us About Retention Rate

You’ve just made a wise decision: you are investing more in both donor-focused retention efforts and new ways to bring in the right donors for your program. Surely, your file will grow and your retention rate will increase. But when you look at the stats a year later, your file has grown. But your retention […]

Learn More June 19, 2018

Letting Go of Donors

A couple weeks ago, I argued you haven’t truly acquired a donor until you get permission, information, or a second gift. Now let’s talk about the other end of the spectrum – when does your relationship with a donor end? This is an important subject for me, because most organizations of my acquaintance spend too […]

Learn More June 6, 2018

The Tragedy of the Donor Commons

“Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. … the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another… But this is […]

Learn More June 5, 2018

Agitator Cliff Notes: “The Why Axis”

Next up is The Why Axis, by Uri Gneezy and John List, two of the community of economists who work on charitable giving. Roger had already covered one item I had noted back in 2013: that 1:1 matches work just as well as 2:1 or 3:1 matches. And I talked about how people give more […]

Learn More May 23, 2018

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

Advocacy Fundraising

Learning from Politics: Chip In Change for Change

TEST RESULTS: You Raise More Money When You Listen to Donors’ Preferences

TEST RESULTS: External Validators Are Vitally Important–Except When They Aren’t

TEST RESULTS: Donors Care About Their Impact, Not Your Overhead

Beware the Mismatched Incentives Between You and Your Canvassing Firm

Pairing metrics for fun and (non)profit

What the Simpsons Can Teach Us About Retention Rate

Letting Go of Donors

The Tragedy of the Donor Commons

Agitator Cliff Notes: “The Why Axis”

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