Good Stories Beat Good Ideas

August 15, 2025      Kevin Schulman, Founder, DonorVoice and DVCanvass

The nonprofit sector has almost no barrier to entry and an unforgiving math problem: more organizations every year, fewer donors giving. The easy wins are gone and the noise has increased exponentially.

The solution isn’t necessarily a bigger audience, a new program, or a sharper operational plan. It’s the story.

Humans don’t just like stories, we think in them, we build our memories around them and it’s how we turn facts into meaning.

In a landmark meta-analysis, researchers found that the more someone is “transported” into a story, the less likely they are to counter-argue and the more likely they are to change their beliefs to match the narrative.

In other words: if you want people to believe, remember, and act then give them the story that makes your issue or program matter.  And your program or issue doesn’t need to be unique, it likely isn’t. Consider that the author of Sapiens, which sold over 27 million copies, agreed with one of his critics that he did no original research and provided nothing new.  He merely presented existing knowledge in a compelling way.

He’s not alone.  Darwin didn’t discover evolution; he wrote the most persuasive book about it. Daniel Pink isn’t a behavioral scientist; he packages other people’s research into narratives that sell millions.  The key wasn’t novelty,  it was clarity, sequence, and emotional resonance.

Story as the Simplifier

Most nonprofits deal in complexity. Your mission involves systems, data, and long causal chains. Try to explain that in raw form and you lose people.

Story is the simplifier, turning complexity into something donors can hold in their heads and hearts.  Albert Einstein’s breakthroughs were powered not just by equations but by imagination. At 16, he pictured himself riding a beam of light, gripping the sides like a flying carpet, wondering how it would bend. That image, in story form, helped him work toward the theory of relativity.

Ken Burns puts it well: “Common stories are 1 + 1 = 2. We get it, they make sense. But the good stories are 1 + 1 = 3.”

The Multiplier: Make It Their Story

A good story has a complete, narrative arc and shows, not tells. A great story matches the donor’s story.

We’re fast to act when something affirms who we are and the groups we belong to.  We latch onto stories that reflect or expand our self-concept. Layer on personality traits and you can shape the same cause for very different audiences:

  • A conscientious donor resonates with stewardship, responsibility, and careful planning.
  • A high-openness donor lights up at exploration, novelty, and imagining new futures.
  • An agreeable donor responds to cooperation and harmony.
  • A high-neuroticism donor may be moved more by risk-aversion.

Two people can hear the same program description and come away with entirely different emotional reactions unless you frame it in their terms.

This is alignment, matching your organization’s plotline to the version of the world the donor already inhabits.

Kevin

 

3 responses to “Good Stories Beat Good Ideas”

  1. Stephen Best says:

    All I would add to this excellent article is that it is, actually, not the story per se that matters. Human beings are feeling creatures that think, not thinking creatures that feel. Stories work–and have forever–because they are one of the best ways we have, limited to language, to make people ‘feel.’ Story is an emotion making technique. Emotion making is why music works so well, too. Music does it even better because the brain doesn’t need to decode it, as it does with words on the page.

  2. Frank OBrien says:

    I always quote these seven words from Nancy Harhut: “Stories stoke emotion. And emotion drives decisions.”

  3. Kevin says:

    Hi Frank. My only modification to that is that emotion isn’t the cause of behavior, it’s the goal. This is nuanced but mission critical to effective storytelling in our view.

    I don’t give because you made me feel sad or angry, I give because I’ve decided it’s the best way to resolve that sadness or anger. That giving experience creates a feedback loop and the donor decides if giving did indeed make them feel better. We advocate for being more intentional about that feedback loop and it starts by making the case in the appeal that giving is the best choice to resolve negative emotions that a story might conjure up.

    This is done, in part, by finishing the story – showing some redemption, some positive change and sense of agency for the beneficiary or situation. And yes, that change in circumstance was brought about, in part, by a donation. My sense of competence and agency goes up reading a full, redemptive story with positive outcome, it increases my sense that giving is a path to making a difference and feeling good about that.

    We’ve even tested being direct and literal in the postscript – e.g. supporters tend to feel better after giving. As hokey is that is, it did create lift with the most important takeaway being the ‘why’ behind it.