The Rage-Donation
Ashley Fetters has written an interesting pice in GQ magazine titled, The Rise of the ‘Rage-Donation’. A fun read.
What she’s talking about is the flood of post-election donations to nonprofits in the US. Here’s the opening …
“Someone I know told me recently that he’s picked up a new habit since the election of Donald Trump: Every time he gets angry watching the news or reading his Facebook feed, he makes a donation to a nonprofit whose cause he believes in. He likes to choose donation recipients that help “offset” whatever’s pissing him off. These days, he says, sometimes he finds himself donating to Planned Parenthood; other times, the American Civil Liberties Union.
“He’s made at least five donations this month.
“It’s not the first story I’ve heard that combines hopelessness or blind fury (or wine-drunk despair) with contributions to charity.”
A bit later she coins the term:
“Welcome to the age of the rage-donation, the act of feverishly throwing money at a cause you believe in because you just don’t know what the hell else to do. (Perhaps you’ve also met its cousins, the guilt-donation and the despair-donation.)”
She observes:
“It’s probably not a coincidence that this is happening at a time when donating requires startlingly low levels of effort. In 2017, it takes all of about three minutes to make a one-time contribution online. Automated services make it easy to set up recurring, direct deposit-like donations from private citizens to 501(c)3 organizations…”
And finally, to make it easier still …
“Or, what the hell—maybe even an app that automatically donates to a charity of your choosing every time President Trump tweets.”
What do you think?
- Is all that ‘rage’ out there making it too easy to raise money?
- How soon will we encounter ‘rage fatigue’?
- And most importantly, to paraphrase Carol King: “Will you still love me,
tomorrownext year?”
Go ahead, take the rage-donations. But that’s the easy part.
Just doing that is like taking candy from a baby. Earn those donations … show you deserve them by delivering both program and service beyond expectation.
Convert the rage to trust and commitment and your group will outlast any president.
Tom
5 responses to “The Rage-Donation”
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
I like the new terminology… Rage Donation… Even though it’s always existed — perhaps biggest now at this moment?
But will we retain? That’s always the question, eh?
Lord knows I’ve made a pile of rage donations since November and I haven’t stopped. The thank yous and communications I’ve received from my chosen nonprofits have been middling at best.
I’d hate to see nonprofits miss this unusual and passion-filled moment – when donors are pouring in. Yes, it’s a time to turn anger into acton – and good old fashioned donor engagement.
Where are the new donor welcome packages, inciting me to more commitment and action? Alas!
I have some concerns about rage-donations or backlash-donations, though such giving has always existed at one level or another.
First, I suspect that most charities receiving such gifts will continue to do the same stewardship job they’ve always done. Usually, that means a poor job resulting in ever declining donor-retention rates.
Second, larger, brand-name charities may simply be siphoning off support from smaller charities with a similar mission including community-based organizations. In other words, will this lead to people giving more or simply giving the same amount where it’s easiest?
Third, I see many charities confusing President Trump (the man) and the issues he is advancing. This is a potentially dangerous approach as the real problems for the charities are the policies, less so the man. I know many folks who think they are one and the same, but they’re not. Imagine if Trump gets impeached; we’ll end up with President Pence who will advance many of the same policies as Trump along with some that are even more conservative. Finally, many of these charities have supporters who (guess what?) voted for Trump; why alienate these donors? I get the appeal of a boogeyman; I just think in runs the risk of being counter-productive, especially in the long term.
Rage … well, as emotional triggers go, it’s fabulous. A really beautiful emotional trigger. We had a phone call. Rage was very, very nice. I can’t say enough good about rage.
On a day with a lot of driving, I happened to hear a lawyer from ACLU talking on the radio … and she was articulate and wonderful and I felt my liberties were in safe hands.
So, honestly, if the ACLU welcome kit doesn’t meet my expectations, I won’t care. This is the time. The ACLU mission matters. There is a clear enemy with almost unlimited power. And its policies are evil or vile, however you want to spell it.
These are the times. It’s not theory any more. A family of enraged true believers will/must fight with whatever they have … including financial support. And if the enemy strips away the charitable deduction under the cover of “tax reform,” give even more.
I tend to agree with Tom. I’ve been an ACLU member on and off for years. Within days of the election, I became a monthly member again. Frankly their stewardship has always sucked. And it probably won’t matter to those of us who are on the side of liberty, justice, and true democracy.
Still, I would advise the smaller organizations to step up their stewardship. Have a plan in place to transform those first-time and/or rage donors into lifetime donors. Phone calls, welcome kits (we’ve got quite a few terrific examples on our site), a plan for the next gift.