Very few people get up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say to themselves: “Today I’ll make a donation to … [fill in the blank — cure cancer, sponsor a child in Bolivia, save the planet from global warming, support my local ballet company.]”

Instead, their attention is pinged by a relevant event, a media report thereof, or maybe even — lucky for you — an explicit solicitation.

And then what happens?

According to DonorTrends surveys we conducted a few years back, only 24% of donors confessed to donating ‘on impulse, when I hear about an issue that bothers me or seems especially urgent’. Very likely, this occurs mainly around natural disasters.

What is more likely in other cases is that a generalized, latent concern pre-exists, and the specific relevant event or direct solicitation triggers the donor to act.

While occasionally marketers must create a new category (bottled water!) and interest in it, most advertising presumes interest in an established category — “I’m in the market for a car or a smartphone” — and attempts to sell a brand.

That’s what a fundraiser is doing (with respect to prospecting) when she makes list selections … trying to target as precisely as possible an individual with an established interest in the ‘category’ — e.g., saving the environment. While the communications staff of the enviro group might be interested in building public awareness about, say, global warming, thereby building the category, the fundraising staff is looking to intercept targeted leads, hoping they are trolling within an established category with an established audience.

So yes, an acquisition package will remind the prospect of why they should be concerned, but I’d argue that the real job of an acquisition package is to sell the organization or campaign — using both emotion and rational persuasion — as the most effective way to act on their concern.

I believe the survey finding noted above. I think most respondents to prospecting appeals are making a considered decision. Other research from Google indicates that 75% of donors check out an organization online before responding to an appeal, half checking multiple sites.

Even when it comes to renewing donors, where familiarity with both cause and organization can be assumed (although 11% of donors report they don’t remember giving previously!), it’s clear that most donors do not give on impulse. Of course, the stats are clear that most don’t respond at all.

Why? Our DonorTrends research indicates that 36% do not renew because they found a different, more effective organization. And 35% because they are dissatisfied with the organization’s performance. As we noted awhile back, many donors are not simply not renewing, they are defecting … moving to another organization.

If that’s not a ‘considered’ decision, I don’t know what is.

Unless you’re raising money for today’s earthquake or typhoon, it’s best to view each and every one of your fundraising appeals as seeking a considered response. Donors are — and have the tools to be — increasingly selective. Ignoring that reality, far too much creative work takes the donor for granted … “We’re here, knocking on your door, give.”

When in fact, inertia (even skepticism and resistance) is high and competition is rampant. You might hope that emotional appeal will get you over the line, but don’t foolishly count on it … look at all your creative and messaging and — dare I say it — consider: “If I were actually thinking about this appeal, why would I not respond?”

Tom