A mysterious student at Oregon State University attended class for two months completely enveloped in a large, black bag. Only his bare feet were visible.

Each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 11 a.m., the Black Bag sat on a small table at the back of a Speech 113 – Basic Persuasion class.

The professor knew the student’s identity. The 20 classmates did not. Over time, attitudes toward the Black Bag evolved—from hostility to curiosity, and finally, to friendship.

This was 1967. The story comes from an AP report datelined Corvallis, Oregon. And with it, the Mere Exposure Effect was put to the test.

The Mere Exposure Effect: repeated exposure to a stimulus—an object, a word, a face, even a person in a black bag—increases positive associations with it. The more we see something, the more we like it.

This effect has been extensively studied. It is robust. It applies broadly. And it is independent—not driven by other explanations. More exposure = more positive attitudes.

Mere Exposure & Fundraising

The fundraising connection is obvious: more exposure = more familiarity = more response.

This explains why control packages are so hard to beat. It’s not that the control itself is brilliant—it’s just that repeated exposure has created positive familiarity.

So why aren’t we in the “more is always better” camp? Why do we push back on high-volume fundraising? Because there’s another part of this story.

Why More Exposure Eventually Hurts Response

The Mere Exposure Effect does not follow a straight, upward-sloping curve. Instead, it’s an upside-down U.

At first, more exposure = more positive response. But eventually, the curve flattens, then turns negative.

Enter: diminishing returns. Not only does net income shrink, but response starts to decline as cost per piece overtakes revenue. And that’s before factoring in long-term negative effects.

Why does response decline?

Because donor fatigue is real—not just a convenient excuse to justify high-volume asks.

It’s a neurological, biological reality. The brain reduces neuron firings when faced with repeated exposure. “I’ve seen this before. No need to pay attention.”

Less attention = lower response.

The Alternative: Pulsing, Not Blasting

So what’s the alternative to constant, high-frequency blasting that inevitably turns the positive linear trend into a negative downturn?

Pulsing.

We’ve written about this before. Pulsing allows you to maximize the upward slope of exposure, then go dark before response declines.

Then? Rinse and repeat.

Minimal exposure is needed to regain the response momentum.

Build brand → Get response → Turn off the spigot → Avoid negative downturn → Turn it back on strategically.

Simple. Smart. Better.

But the status quo is powerful. So is FOMO.

The Choice: Corvallis + Donor Fatigue… or Just Corvallis?

Do nothing, and you’ll keep riding the curve downward.

Or change your cadence. At a bare minimum, rethink your rhythm.

Your move.

– Kevin