Fundraising philosophy/profession

Urgent Alert to U.S. Nonprofits–Immediate Action Needed

If you’re willing to turn over the list of your top donors to the government then you need read no further. However, if you’re not sure, or you’re absolutely certain you’d be unwilling to give up the donor list, then take this post to your CEO and General Counsel. Immediately. Why? Because right now the […]

Learn More August 13, 2015

Lazy Fundraisers

As he dashed out the door for his annual vacation Tom’s last act was to fill The Agitator’s “Grist Mill” Inbox with a ream of suggestions for posts during his absence. Maybe it was the demon of envy in my self-conscious that forced my eyes to settle on one item. After all, this year Tom […]

Learn More August 12, 2015

American Cancer Society Flops

If bullshit were the new cure for cancer then the direct marketing staff and consultants of the American Cancer Society should win the Nobel Prize in Medicine hands down. That was pretty much the conclusion of dozens of Agitator readers who phoned, emailed and texted following their attendance at last week’s presentation at the DMANF New […]

Learn More August 10, 2015

Innovation Series #4: Failure to Innovate

What’s stopping you from innovation. Nothing we can think of except the usual sloth, fear and idiotic board or CEO. Perhaps you can enlighten us. What reasons do you give for failure to innovate? Here’s Tom’s take in his 2012 post Nonprofit Failure is Too Rare. The Editors By Tom Belford | December 6, […]

Learn More August 6, 2015

The Single Most Important “Fix” for Fundraising

Back in May Ken Burnett served up a thought-provoking finale to his 5-part Future of Fundraising series: Fundraising and the rule of law. For those who missed this series we especially want to repeat and focus on a key reform we all need to work on –fixing the donor’s experience. You’ll find Ken’s recommendations set forth […]

Learn More July 30, 2015

Wanted: “Retentioneer”

Seems like the hot new job title in Silicon Valley is “Retentioneer.” The term is a combination of “Retention” + “Engineer” = Retentionner.” Tech companies are finally realizing the futility of focusing on growth without fixing the leaky bucket of attrition. In short, they need to fix retention to have any chance of real growth. Sound […]

Learn More July 29, 2015

Fundraising Hypocrisy

If you’re one of our 872 UK Agitator readers this is for you. And also for the other 7,247 Agitators around the globe. Most likely the shoe also fits. Here’s the deal. Over the last few months the UK tabloids busted the fundraising British sector for its overly aggressive tactics in telemarketing and Face –To-Face techniques. […]

Learn More July 28, 2015

Wallowing In Fundraising Delusions

Awhile back, Jeff Brooks cited a number of ‘fundraising delusions’ he read about on Social Velocity. The Social Velocity article opened as follows: “Fundraising is, for the most part, a fundamentally misunderstood activity. There are a lot of misconceptions, among nonprofit leaders, board members — even donors — about effective ways to bring money in […]

Learn More July 23, 2015

The 20:2 Principle

We’ve all heard of the Pareto Principle — the 80:20 rule — in one form or another. In its basic formulation, something like 20% of your customers — or donors, or stores, or products — generate 80% of your income. [I’ve often daydreamed: does 20% of my time generate 80% of my income? Sadly, I’ve […]

Learn More July 22, 2015

Broken! Dangerous Fundraising Machinery

I wonder how many donors give in spite of the fundraising machine, not because of it?! As I read and wrote about the press and public’s outrage over Face-2-Face and telemarketing techniques that’s spilled forth in the UK, I kept asking: “Why or how in the world could a sector this sophisticated have allowed this […]

Learn More July 16, 2015

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