Picture two donors who give to the same food bank.  One always has a plan, calendars are full, bills paid early. They give because keeping things stable matters, and because someone needs to make sure the system holds.

The other is just as generous, but wired differently. She’s energized by new ideas, new approaches, and the sense that problems can be solved better than they are today. They give because change feels possible.

Most fundraisers recognize these people as they show up in meetings, donor calls, and comments on surveys.

And then we send them the same appeal.  The efficiency system is wired for one-size-fits-all, it “works”.

When personalization comes up, the question turns to a rhetorical one, is the juice worth the squeeze?  Or is it just expensive complexity layered onto messages that already work well enough?  Those are fair questions and the right ones.

A recent field experiment on savings behavior answers both.  Users of a new savings app agreed to a goal of trying to save $100 in 30 days.

Users were randomly assigned to one of five conditions.

1. Personality-matched messaging

Each participant completed a Big Five personality assessment. The system identified their most pronounced trait and framed the savings goal around a future payoff that fit that trait.  This wasn’t a tonal tweak or adjective swap, it was a different reason for saving.

Examples:

• High Conscientiousness
  • Save to build an emergency fund
  • Emphasis on preparation, responsibility, staying on track
  • The money is about order and security
• High Openness
  • Save to create options and freedom
  • Emphasis on future experiences, flexibility, possibility
  • The money is about exploration

2. Personality-mismatched messaging

Participants were deliberately shown the opposite framing of their dominant trait.

• High Openness participants saw messages about proven methods and stability
• High Conscientiousness participants saw messages about adventure and novelty

This rules out novelty and creativity as explanations, message fit is the variable being isolated.

3. Gold-standard messaging

This was the organization’s existing best-performing messaging.  It was generic encouragement with no explicit goal beyond “save $100” and no personalization. The kind of message most nonprofits send because it performs fine and offends no one.

4. Random personality messaging

Participants received one of the personality-based messages at random, regardless of their own profile.  This matters because random sometimes looks like personalization if you squint hard enough.

5. No-message control – Maybe nothing beats something.

The outcome was simple: did the participant reach $100 in savings within 30 days.

Here is the ordering:

• Personality-matched: ~11–12%
• Gold standard: ~7–8%
• Mismatched: ~6–7%
• Random: ~6%
• No message: ~3–4%

Matched messaging roughly tripled success versus no message and meaningfully outperformed the organization’s best existing messaging

And mismatched and random messaging erased most of the benefit, ruling out “any personalization helps” to find that it was  fit or nothing.

Fundraising Lessons

The tailoring worked because it helped the person imagine why saving already made sense for them. Most so-called personalization fails because it stays at the surface, cosmetic changes that leave the underlying meaning untouched.

Let’s make this concrete with a food bank appeal.

Assume the same underlying facts:

• Families are going hungry more often due to rising costs
• The food bank has a clear intervention
• The ask amount is identical

The facts don’t change, it’s how the story, need, solution, and ask are organized to match motivation.

Gold-standard control (what most organizations send)

Story: A family struggling to put food on the table.

Need: Rising costs mean more neighbors are at risk of hunger.

Solution: The food bank provides meals to families in need.

Ask: Give today to help feed your neighbors.

This works sometimes, is psychologically generic and relies on moral consensus rather than personal fit.

Trait-matched example: High Conscientiousness

Story: A single parent who budgets carefully, works multiple jobs, and still finds that one unexpected expense can destabilize the month.

Need: When systems are fragile, small disruptions turn into crises.

Solution: The food bank acts as infrastructure, smoothing volatility, ensuring predictable access to food, and preventing downstream emergencies.

Ask: Your gift strengthens the system families rely on before they fall behind.

Trait-matched example: High Openness

Story: A family navigating changing work schedules and new living arrangements, adapting constantly to uncertainty.

Need: Old models are not reaching everyone who needs support.

Solution: The food bank pilots new distribution methods, partnerships, and flexible programs that meet families where they are.

Ask: Your gift helps build better ways to fight hunger in a changing world.

Send the innovation story to someone motivated by order and it can feel unfocused.  Send the infrastructure story to someone motivated by exploration and it feels static.  The generic control will occasionally land by accident, sometimes it will partially resonate and sometimes it will miss entirely.

If personalization stops at adjectives, then save a lemon.  If personalization reshapes meaning, story, solution, and ask to align with motivation, get out the juicer.

Kevin