Floss Your Donors
I read Tom’s My Shiny New Gadget while sitting in the dentist’s waiting room.
On the one hand he chronicles the rapidly increasing numbers of new nonprofits who are likely to need all the fundamental advice they can get. On the other hand Tom admits he’s bored with basics.
Instead he’s intrigued with the findings of neuroscience and how they might be applied to the fundraising trade.
I finished Tom’s post and glanced around the waiting room. There, on the wall in all its embroidered glory, was a rock- solid, back-to-basics adage:
I don’t need a neuroscientist to tell me this also applies to donors.
Are you flossing?
Roger
2 responses to “Floss Your Donors”
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
I’m fascinated about how you can read on your iPhone and be flossed at the same time. COOL!!
And I love your point. Maybe it should say Floss only the teeth that want to be kept? Oops… I mean “floss only the donors who want to be kept.” Because maybe our decision-making isn’t so good.
Of course, you may well be meaning. “Hey. Floss damn it! That keeps teeth and donors, too.”
I was just thinking along similar lines this morning… about annual giving. So often, it gets lost in the ho-hum, until an organization wants to raise LOTS of money for a special need. Then all those ignored donors are supposed to magically turn into campaign donors.
Have to take care of your teeth every day (and even then, you’re lucky if you keep them all… genetics matters, too). But if you don’t, you can be pretty sure they won’t be there long.