• Home
  • Blog Posts
  • Behavioral Science
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Toolbox
  • Archives

Privacy Policy

We realize that it’s rich in irony to be providing a privacy policy for readers in an industry that routinely rents and exchanges its donors’ names and addresses to other nonprofits with little or no notice or permission whatsoever in order to create what many donors consider a nuisance.

Nonetheless, here’s The Agitator’s privacy deal.  As simple and clear as we can make it despite the best efforts of our whining, nit-picking lawyers to obfuscate and make it more complex:

That said, The Agitator and DonorVoice are committed to maintaining the privacy of your personal information. The following explains our information collection practices, privacy policies, and the choices available to you with regard to how your information is collected and utilized.

This privacy policy applies specifically to agitator.thedonorvoice.com.

The Information We Collect

  • Personal information you provide to us, including, but not limited to your name, age, address, e-mail addressed and facts about your background, profession, and similar information.
  • Information regarding your interaction with our site, including, but not limited to, your IP address, device type, geographic location information, computer and connection information, statistics on page views, traffic to and from our sites, and web log information.
  • Information you provide to us through discussions/comments with other readers, e-mails, chats, and information you share with us through other social applications or websites.
  • Like most web site owners, we collect information using “cookies”, small data elements that we place in your computer or device to store your preferences.  Cookies help us to deliver information, identify unique browsers that visit us, and track usage throughout our site.  Cookies do not extract personal data about you, like your name or email address.  If your browser is not set to accept cookies, certain areas of the website may not function properly.  Where we do provide hyperlinks to reference third party research and content to make it easy for you to dive deeper, you should check the privacy policy of the site you are visiting to learn about that site’s practices regarding the use of your information.

How We Use the Information We Collect

  • For the purposes for which you specifically provided the information. For example, we require folks responding in our Comments sections to provide an email address. We do this because of our policy against anonymity, but we don’t share or publish your email address, just your name.
  • To send you e-mail notifications about the fabulous or outrageous stuff we’re doing, whitepapers we’ve publishing, webinars we’ve recorded, or fundraising research we’ve conducted, or to otherwise seek your involvement and opinion through surveys
  • To enhance existing features or develop new features, products, and services.
  • To allow us to personalize the content you and others see based on personal characteristics or preferences.
  • If required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to conform to the edicts of the law or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order or legal process served on The Agitator or to protect and defend the rights or property of The Agitator.

Preserving the Privacy of Your Information

We endeavor to safeguard and protect your personal information. When you submit personal information on our site such information is protected both online and offline. Only employees and supervisors with specific authorization have access to databases containing personal information. The databases are protected in a secure facility where information is transmitted via encrypted technology.

Although we take measures to safeguard against unauthorized disclosures of information, we cannot assure you that personally identifiable information that we collect will never be disclosed in a manner that is inconsistent with this Privacy Policy. Shit, if banks and governments get hacked, The Agitator ain’t gonna claim it’s inviolate. You should especially be aware of our concern about North Korean, Russian and the Trump Administration’s behavior.

However, should an intruder get past the dobermans, firewalls, and fire-breathing dragons and grab our data, we’ll let you know via email within 48 hours and post an Alert on our website.

Email Addresses: We will not share your e-mail address with third parties beyond our sister companies, DonorTrends, TrueGivers, and DonorVoice.  We reserve the right to present you with messages and content on their behalf.

Subscription Lists: Unlike standard industry practice, we will not rent, exchange or sell to third parties mailing address information you provide us when subscribing or otherwise involving yourself with The Agitator. We adhere strictly to the Direct Marketing Association’s Ethical Business Practices. In fact, we’re a lot more strict than they are.  We often laugh about their laxity. For information about these rather dicey ethical practices, visit the Direct Marketing Association’s site at http://www.dmaresponsibility.org/.

We don’t laugh about the GDRP and do our damndest to abide by it. Even better,  we write helpful posts and provide insights on how to be more donorcentric thanks to the GDRP.

Agents: We do not employ other companies and individual agents to perform functions on our behalf with the exception of web design, sending email, and providing tools to conduct surveys. The companies we employ have access only to the information needed to perform their functions, and are contractually prohibited from using it for other purposes. Not to mention the fact that we’ll expose and forever ride their sorry asses.

Third-Party Providers: Unlike virtually everyone else in the world we make no content or products available through cooperative relationships with third parties. We’re really that anti-social.

Major Business Transactions: In the event of a major business transaction, our customer information may be one of the transferred business assets. Heaven only knows why The Agitator would want to acquire The New York Times or Huff Post or BuzzFeed. But if that happens, we’ll sure let you know and give you a chance to bail out and delete all your information.

Force Majeure and Errant Geeks.  We do not employ webmasters under the age of 35 (even those trying desperately to grow a goatee or lay claim to the coolest new t-shirt). Despite our best efforts we cannot guarantee against what the dodgy insurance companies call ‘acts of god’ or Force Majeure. So, if at any time you believe that your association with The Agitator needs to be quickly hidden and deleted you may use the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email we send you.

Contact Us if you have any questions about our Privacy Policy. We don’t have a privacy czar but we all care a lot about our readers so one of us will get back to you right away. Just email Editors@theagitator.net,  or reach us by postal mail at Agitator/DonorVoice, 11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 200, Reston, VA 20190.

 

 

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    Q: As a designer who works with non-profits on fundraising strategy, I see the language like the following: “Our supporters help empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs.” I do not think the word “help” is useful–I think “Our supporters empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs. ” is much more engaging. Thoughts?

    Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: We started offering a donor cover option last april 1. The data to date suggests this may be dampening giving.eg. those who say yes to donor cover have a lower average gift (based on analysis of 6000+ gifts). I’m wondering if those who give lower gifts feel more guilt and therefore say yes to donor cover or if the presence of donor cover is making people adjust (lower) their gift size to accommodate the extra 3%. Would love any insights you have.

    Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: When writing an appeal, I waffle back and forth between writing “Your gift CAN…” or “Your gift WILL…” Any studies of which of these two words is best for an appeal?

    The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: Do you have any insight on whether integrating an individual giving appeal with other comms from the charity in both appearance and messaging can uplift results? Or does the actual appeal become ‘lost’ for lack of stand-out?

    Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: Is there any research on response rate impact in direct mail when referring to a sustainer gift as ongoing or recurring (catching all frequencies) v. monthly or annual?

    I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]

    Read Full Answer

    Q: A major conservation nonprofit sends me lots of mail, many of which have on the envelope “time to renew” or “2nd notice.” I find this practice deceptive, especially as I haven’t given to said organization since 1997. It must be effective or they wouldn’t do it. But is it ethical?

    Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]

    Read Full Answer

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including:



      • © Copyright 2005 - 2025, The Agitator. All Rights Reserved.
      • About Us
      • Privacy Policy
      • Sitemap
      • RSS Feed
      • We welcome your feedback!