Didn’t You Hear Me? No “Thank You”!
Few posts over the years have provoked as much outrage and discussion as Tom’s No “Thank You”!
Hopefully, you’re now back at your desk, treating as your highest priority the privilege of thanking your year-end donors. If so, you’ll want to read this — especially the Comments.
Then go ahead, this is your chance set Tom straight once and for all … I’m sure he’ll thank you.
Roger
3 responses to “Didn’t You Hear Me? No “Thank You”!”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
Whether it makes a difference or not, being grateful and saying thanks is the right thing to do. Do we measure the “right thing to do” , or as Nike says, “Just do it!”
I think the idea of not saying thank you is ludicrous. Someone just did something thoughtful for you, and it was something he had absolutely no obligation to do. “Thank you”, measurable or not, is just the right and the polite thing to do. In a commercial world where we somehow have accepted “have a nice day” or “you’re all set” as appropriate substitutes for “thank you” (which they aren’t), can’t we as fundraisers do a little better?
The Agitator should be above peddling drivel. It is relied on as an oasis of common sense.
Your own book, ‘ Retention Fundraising ‘, totally driven by facts and results, identifies ‘ Receives timely thank-yous ‘ as no.3 key driver that most influences donors. It goes on to give many examples, tests, and evidence.
I hope Tom acknowledges his mistake. And that not too many avid Agitator fans have been swerved off course by his original piece.