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

About us

Roger Craver, Co-Editor, The Agitator


When I switched from being a major gifts and capital campaign fundraiser in favor of the path of direct response my colleagues thought I had gone mad. They simply couldn’t imagine why any serious fundraiser would resort to anything less than face-to-face contact with donors and prospects.

That was 45 years ago.

Today, halfway through my career, I’m more convinced than ever that direct response fundraising and marketing continues to enjoy spectacular future. Far brighter than I ever imagined in those early years when we upstarts at Craver, Mathews, Smith & Company used the direct response techniques of the day to help launch or build groups like Common Cause, The National Organization for Women, ACLU, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and dozens of other major organizations, both in the U.S. and in Europe.

A lawyer by training, a copywriter and strategist by trade, and a curious and optimistic guy by nature, I’m more convinced than ever that the best is yet to come where direct response fundraising is concerned. The only threats to our craft that truly worry me are complacency and conventional wisdom. Both jeopardize the best possible performance at a time when nonprofits will be required to perform far more and far better than they have in the past.

Ours is a trade that has grown prosperous and self-satisfied. Even for the inexperienced or just plain stupid, there is rapid advancement and substantial financial reward. Why? Because the number of available vacancies for “fundraising” positions far outstrips the available talent.

Even more worrisome in this era of rapid change is the unwillingness on the part of far too many fundraisers, CEOs and Boards to innovate, to take risks and to break new ground.

Fortunately, there is a wealth of new talent, technologies and techniques bursting on to the scene. These are the best antidotes to complacency and conventional wisdom. It’s my hope that in this space we can –together — shine the spotlight on the trends, talent, techniques and technologies that will make us all perform better tomorrow than we do today.

Afterall, the stakes for the causes and organizations we serve are simply too high to accept anything less.

Nick Ellinger, VP of Marketing Strategy, DonorVoice

The year was 2008 — the year of the financial crash — so a lot of direct marketing programs, like the one I’d just taken over at  Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), were significantly off budget.

Then it happened again a few years later. This time my faith in conventional wisdom, in budgeting projections, in the belief “they do this for a living and clearly they know more about this than I do” was shaken to its core.  It didn’t help that I was the first to notice the problem and had to persuade our consultants that we were headed for trouble.

Then and there I made a pledge to myself: the next time I missed a goal by even a penny, it would be the result of my own [expletive deleted] decisions.

Never again would I be any less the expert than anyone else in the room where plans and decisions are made. And never again would I trust the way things had always been done. All knowledge was now suspect — as it always should have been.

That’s also when I started writing about nonprofit marketing as a way to force myself to stretch. And in reading to support my writing habit, I saw cracks in the conventional wisdom that I’d accepted on blind faith.

“Conventional wisdom” was replaced by new insights like: Matches aren’t as good as overhead-covering lead gifts… Highest previous contribution is a bad place to start an ask string… File size is a pretty bad way of measuring the size of your file…. More isn’t better…Donors can give valuable feedback… Pure emotion doesn’t always win (just most of the time).

I also discovered new and helpful vistas. Neuromarketing, behavioral psychology, the economics of ask strings, online targeting methodologies – things I’d not dreamed up when getting my MBA. There was always another rabbit hole to explore, another level up or down in our fractals of knowledge.

Pretty soon, I moved to DonorVoice because they were asking (and answering) the most important questions our industry faces about why donors give (beyond the simplified answer “because we ask”).

It was in this leveling-up process that I discovered The Agitator (and other luminaries too numerous to mention or list lest I forget). It scratched me where I itched. It asked “we may be doing this right… but what if we aren’t?” And there was an actual conversation going on. As a once and future debater, I loved this ethos of steel sharpening steel.

So it’s my honor to write for the Agitator and to be a part of the discussion and the community. I hope I can give you as much as you’ve given me.  I hope to spark a thought in your mind as you have in mine. I hope that together we can raise some money for some great causes.

And mostly, I hope you never say “I agree with Nick 100%.” Even I don’t do that.

Please disagree, using your outside voice.  We’ll make each other better.

Charlie Hulme, Managing Director, DonorVoice UK

Like some of you I didn’t start out as a fundraiser. My early career was spent in sales and marketing. The money was the good, career satisfaction was bad. I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to be a fundraiser.

So, I was pretty disappointed, early in my fundraising career, to find fundraisers (no matter how smart and/or conscientious) weren’t making much difference. ‘Best’ practise forced focus on bringing people in the front door (which was/is getting harder and more expensive) and hardly any on saving the enormous number leaving out the back. It felt the entire sector was running to stand still.

But the biggest disappointment was mindset. Some thought they couldn’t do anything about the problem. Others loudly preached solutions, without evidence, to the problem. Still others didn’t think there was a problem.

One agency fired me for pushing clients to test the radical hypothesis people had deeper reasons for giving than “we asked”. Another hired me to do the same thing.

During my years as creative director at the latter I helped many charities uncover rudimentary supporter identities (e.g. connection to disease or not, parent/pet owner or not etc.) Most saw lift in performance and value.

It was a step forward, but still frustrating. Largely because it remained at campaign level; never scaled to ‘journey’. Mostly because, in almost all cases, I had to struggle to get each charity to accept the basic premise. It got pretty lonely.

Then I found the Agitator. I found a community of people like you challenging the status quo. Not with empty rhetoric about being “emotional”, “donor-centric”, “insert meaningless platitude here”, but evidence.

Through the Agitator I found DonorVoice. Today I get to work with forward-thinking organizations, using a unique combination of tools and skills, to uncover why people are or would support them.

I’m proud to be a part of this community and to share with you what these charities are doing. I hope it inspires you to continue agitating for change (which is why you’re here, right?)

Tom Belford, Co-Editor Emeritus, The Agitator

Tom thumbnail

In my first job, in the founding days of Common Cause, we kept track of our members with perforated cards and activated them via phone trees!

Now of course we use sophisticated databases and online tools. But along the way, guess what, as a marketer of both issues and products, I’ve been reminded over and over of two lessons: fundamental principles of human motivation still apply, and the right solution begins with the right question.

Hopefully I’ve learned something about marketing causes and issues that you might find valuable. My checkered past includes the Carter White House, building Ted Turner’s first philanthropic organization, doing a ton of consulting for non-profits through Vanguard Communications and Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co., conceiving marketing programs for corporate clients from Time Warner Cable to Maker’s Mark bourbon to Discovery Communications, and running marketing for Environmental Defense.

Enjoy our blog … and push back!

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    Q:We are struggling with acquistion. During our biggest community campaign, a colleague is suggesting that we have a QR code directing donors to a donate page that does not capture donor information – just a donation and an email address. We won’t be able to post any of these new doors our lvoely newsletters, or thank you letters. We’ll likely never hear from them again. What’s the best method to get this team to see the importance about a donor vs a donation?

    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

    Q: Should we include “Giving Tuesday” in the subject lines for the emails that are going out before Giving Tuesday?

    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

    Q: can we pull the match language into the subject lines? Or this should be an A/B test?

    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

    Q: Our mid-level donor team removed the QR code from the DM donation form that links to the donation page, but have left the URL for them to type it in manually. Not sure why they are adding a barrier to the donation process for a higher value donor – but I have to ask – is there any proof – either way – if a QR donation code reduces MV online giving, has any effect on their donation amount, has any effect on off line donations? Thank you….

    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

    Q: How can we effectively use behavioral science to help shift our Board’s mindset. The majority are extremely resistant to asking their networks or sharing their contact lists with us, even after a candid discussion with an external lay leader who has been training boards with her fantastic Fundraising isn’t the F Word! workshop. We have also offered to use our automated email tool to send their appeals from their own email. It is so frustrating. We even have 2 Board members and the chair trying put some accountability on them for our big event but people are not really moving!

    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

    Q: Copywriters often argue the ask should appear on the first page, but that usually breaks the story in two. With a one-sided letter the ask is always on page one, but with a two-sided letter it may fall on the second page—do results differ? Has your appeal structure been tested on both one-sided and two-sided letters? I just read the article Your Appeal Outline: Thoughtful Strategy or Random Spasm?

    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

    The Agitator Tool Box

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



      • © Copyright 2005 - 2026, The Agitator. All Rights Reserved.
      • About Us
      • Privacy Policy
      • Sitemap
      • RSS Feed
      • We welcome your feedback!