Metrics - Agitator | DonorVoice

Fundraising analytics / data

How You Can Tell the Truth With Data

Monday, we talked about how other people lie. Here’s how you can tell the truth – effectively. It’s the last part that’s important. Anyone can present data honestly. But giant wads of data aren’t compelling. This is problematic because there is a war going on. It’s between two types of marketing people: art versus science. […]

Learn More November 20, 2019

How Other People Lie With Data

Not you, of course. You are a moral upright person who wants to paint only the most accurate possible pictures of where you are and where you are going. With the knowledge of statistics comes the responsibility of presenting them effectively. My first nonprofit boss used to say that if you interrogate the data, it […]

Learn More November 18, 2019

Buy Nick’s Book

Nick has written a practical, helpful, and, yes, fun-to-read book on surviving the complex calamity of diminishing donor numbers, clogged acquisition channels and diminishing retention. It’s titled: The New Nonprofit: Six Models to Raise More Money and Accomplish More Mission. It’s just been released and is ready for your order! I’ve read the book four times […]

Learn More August 22, 2019

Direct Mail Isn’t Dead, But Volume As A Strategy Is.

There’s an excellent post by Erica Waasdorp on CharityHowTo detailing how mail is still working for organizations. She highlights how digital is still a small-ish minority of all gifts (we’ve estimated it will hit 25% of gifts by 2084) and how there’s still a high return on direct mail investment for many organizations. We totally […]

Learn More August 16, 2019

Speed Round 2: 7 More Updates on 7 More Issues

So many things to update; so little time! So we went back to a concept we tried, and you tolerated, last month: the potpourri post. Sustainer growth: We’d talked about the 2019 M+R Benchmarks Study, which showed monthly giving rising as one-time giving was mostly flat. An astute commenter (all Agitator commenters are astute!) asked […]

Learn More May 22, 2019

Takeaways From the 2019 M+R Benchmarks Study

Yesterday, on the perfect date, M+R published its 2019 online benchmarking data; it’s well worth a read. Some of the data that jumped out at us: Online giving was close to flat, only up 1%. While this fits with the general “where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?” concerns about overall […]

Learn More April 26, 2019

Three Scenarios for The Future of Individual Giving

Last week, we did some wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments about the loss of the average individual donor. But how wringy, gnashy, and rendy should we be? What does our future hold? So we did what any smart person would do when working with Fundraising Effectiveness Project data: fired up […]

Learn More March 18, 2019

Year-end Results: More Answers to “What Happened?”

Back in January, Roger cited M+R’s “What the Heck Just Happened?” post about subpar year-end results. Now, M+R is back with answers in a preview of their always helpful benchmarks. The full post is up here and is well worth a read. Some answers to our burning questions: Did the tax law change mess things […]

Learn More March 4, 2019

Fundraising Ain’t Dead Yet

Back on January 9th in Poor Year-End Giving we noted that it’s “clear from the moaning and groaning reaching our Agitator ears that, for many, year-end giving fell short of expectations and projections. “Just how much off the mark?”, we asked. Results vary but overall the shortfall may be as much as 25% for some organizations. For others there […]

Learn More February 22, 2019

The Easy Money is Gone: Overcoming Barriers to Growth

As I noted in the first post of this series —The Easy Money is Gone— a smaller pie and more mouths to feed is a recipe for disaster. And yet, status quo thinking, and activity dominate within organizations. Fortunately, as reflected in the generous and thoughtful comments to that post there is optimism about the future […]

Learn More February 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

Fundraising analytics / data

How You Can Tell the Truth With Data

How Other People Lie With Data

Buy Nick’s Book

Direct Mail Isn’t Dead, But Volume As A Strategy Is.

Speed Round 2: 7 More Updates on 7 More Issues

Takeaways From the 2019 M+R Benchmarks Study

Three Scenarios for The Future of Individual Giving

Year-end Results: More Answers to “What Happened?”

Fundraising Ain’t Dead Yet

The Easy Money is Gone: Overcoming Barriers to Growth

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