Fundraising analytics / data

The Taxman Cometh, Part 2: Maybe the 2017 Tax Bill Won’t Kill Us All

Since I ended my piece yesterday the doom and gloom note of the existential threat to all philanthropy, this is an odd, or at least paradoxical, piece to write. But there’s some counterbalancing evidence that we may not be peering into the abyss created by the new tax cut law. Hope #1 is that donors […]

Learn More March 15, 2018

The Taxman Cometh, Part 1: The Downside of the 2017 Tax Bill for Nonprofits

We’ve had a few reader requests to talk about the nonprofit implications of the new tax bill. The trick in meeting this request is that 1) smart people on this issue disagree and 2) I’m not one of the people in #1. So I’ll try to lay out the gloom and doom case today, the […]

Learn More March 14, 2018

What Ask String Works Best?

The life of a direct response fundraiser is filled with so many questions – far more questions than answers. Take the question, “How much should we ask for?” Usually the question is answered with the conventional application of a formula based on previous giving. For example, 1.0X, 1.5X, 2.0X highest previous gift –or some variation […]

Learn More March 13, 2018

The Value of an Email Address

Last week, we talked about advocacy as a way of building your file (and I was called out, correctly, for discounting the potential of paid advocate acquisition). So how much should you spend to get one email address? There’s new data from Steve MacLaughlin and Blackbaud (that you can get from his Data Driven Nonprofits […]

Learn More March 2, 2018

Avoid the Cringe-Inducing Moment of Calling a Deceased Donor

Today we’re adding TrueDeceased to The Agitator Toolbox. This easy-to-use tool enables you to go online and quickly—and without charge – get an overview of who on your database is deceased. When The Agitator first announced our Data Liberation Crusade and asked what low-cost data services were needed, reader Ann Kensek told us, “My Data Dream would include a database […]

Learn More February 27, 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

Advocacy Fundraising #2: Slacktivism Science

Online advocacy has a bad name. Specifically: slacktivism (or clicktivism). Seth Meyers put the prevailing opinion into funny words on SNL: “Look, if you make a Facebook page we will “like” it—it’s the least we can do. But it’s also the most we can do.” This frames the debate well. Is online activism a prelude […]

Learn More February 22, 2018

Introducing TrueAppend for Fundraisers

Today we’re adding TrueAppend to The Agitator Toolbox. This easy-to-use tool enables you to go online and quickly—and without charge – get a demographic overview of your donor database. In a matter of minutes, you’ll receive charts and graphs identifying key characteristics of your donors. Attributes like Age, Net worth, and Income. Lifestyle markers like marital […]

Learn More February 20, 2018

2017: “The year charitable giving bounced back.”

The other day The Blackbaud Insitute for Philanthropic Impact released its 2017 Charitable Giving Report and the news is good. In brief…. Overall giving grew approximately 4.1% in 2017—fueled by a 5.1% increase in the last three months of the year. Online giving grew 12.1% in 2017 compared to 2016 Online donations made up 7.6% […]

Learn More February 19, 2018

Feedback Week: Channel and Volume Preferences

For those who missed yesterday’s post, we are going through the top donor comments to top nonprofits. And you don’t get much more “top” than channel and volume comments. Almost 20% of the total substantive comments were either “don’t mail/email/phone me” or “I would like to receive less mail/fewer phone calls/fewer emails.” For perspective, the […]

Learn More February 14, 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