Past giving predicts future giving. That’s useful for deciding whom to ask, but it becomes circular when we mistake prediction for understanding.

For this reason, I used to dismiss behavior beyond its predictive value but I overlooked an important mechanism: repetition in a familiar setting can make a response automatic.

The chart shows why this matters.  An occasional behavior is caused more by being deliberate, weighing the choice and making it.  But routine behaviors are more automatic, the repetition crowds out the deliberation part.

Which fundraising behavior gives people the most repetition?   Not giving.

Donating tends to involve at least some deliberate thought. Ignoring another appeal takes much less effort. The envelope goes in the bin, the email gets deleted. Familiar cues can trigger a practiced response before the pitch gets a hearing.

Someone may care about your cause while barely registering your invitation to support it. The familiar envelope, the faux urgency, the same matching gift offer, the interchangeable premiums can all announce: another one of those.

We may be testing the words inside an appeal that people have learned to dismiss before reading.  So, instead of starting with “What should our next appeal say?”, start with the dismissal routine: When and where does it happen, and what signals that this is another message to ignore?

The cue is what people recognize: the sender, envelope, subject line, design or familiar offer. The context is what they’re doing when they encounter it: clearing their inbox, sorting mail, reading something relevant or actively thinking about the cause.

That gives us a framework for generating tests:

For each idea, complete this sentence:

“When people encounter ___ while ___, they tend to ___. We’ll change ___ so they have a reason to ___ instead.”

Name the replacement behavior. “Pay attention” is too vague. Read the first sentence, examine the evidence, consider the need or choose whether to help gives the test a clearer purpose.

Then apply three checks:

• Does this change something people encounter before dismissal? If the change is buried inside unread copy, it cannot interrupt that first response.
• Does it give them a worthwhile alternative? Surprise can interrupt recognition; relevance or curiosity must justify continuing.
• Does it improve giving enough to justify the cost? More attention is an intermediate result, not the fundraising outcome.

Kevin