Q:We are struggling with acquistion. During our biggest community campaign, a colleague is suggesting that we have a QR code directing donors to a donate page that does not capture donor information – just a donation and an email address. We won’t be able to post any of these new doors our lvoely newsletters, or thank you letters. We’ll likely never hear from them again. What’s the best method to get this team to see the importance about a donor vs a donation?
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 from “I want to help” to “They want something from me.” That subtle shift further lowers motivation and increases drop-off. Instead, make it optional with a brief rationale such as: “Share your address to receive impact updates and newsletters.” This preserves donor agency, while still allowing the organization to collect information from those who genuinely want deeper engagement.
However, the biggest opportunity with QR-driven giving is converting that moment of motivation into sustained support by taking them to a page where they can sign up for an annual recurring gift. This creates far greater long-term value than a one-time donation plus a mailing address ever could.
A clean, low-friction page that affirms the mission, reinforces shared values and goals, and encourages a recurring annual gift is the single biggest long-term win you can get from a QR interaction.
I hope this helps.
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