New Year’s Week Editorial Note
This week’s post is brought to you by an AI-generated image and a calendar technicality. Dec 29 is Kevin’s birthday, which is an extremely convenient excuse for not publishing again. Yes, this is the same Kevin who, as a child, routinely got jobbed with “two-fer” Christmas and birthday – one gift, one card, two obligations satified. He’s not bitter about this, not at all. He simply spent most of the day working on this AI image, which is a very healthy way to process unresolved injustice.
Our New Year’s programming will include light editorial navel-gazing, imaginary planning meetings, and bold declarations about what we will “definitely” test in 2026, many of which will quietly disappear once real client work resumes. There may also be leftover holiday snacks and an internal debate about whether the fresh start effect applies to inboxes, websites, or just personal guilt.
We will be back in January with new posts, sharper arguments, and renewed enthusiasm for pointing out that most fundraising problems are self-inflicted and how to undo it.
Until then, enjoy the AI image, Kevin worked very hard on it.
Roger and Kevin
year
2 responses to “New Year’s Week Editorial Note”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
Happy Birthday Kevin. I have a friend who was 100 yesterday! She too has always hated getting one cheapskate card and at least the one from the king didn’t mention Christmas. May 2026 be kind to us all
A New Year’s toast to The Agitator — and to its two primary agitators: May ye agitate agitatingly in 2026!