“There is obviously hope for us all …”
That’s the message of my favorite Tweet this week. It’s from @AdrianSargeant and attached to it is this marvelous piece of correspondence.
Not only is it evidence of Adrian’s point that there’s hope for us all, it’s equally a reminder of the danger that springs from believing the safest course of action lies in sticking with the status quo.
Have a good, but restless weekend.
Roger
5 responses to ““There is obviously hope for us all …””
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
A slightly more contemporary example is Dr. Sackett, generally considered the “father of evidence based” medicine who famously said,
“Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half–so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own.”
He intentionally made a wild, exaggerated estimate to make a point though there is some evidence he wasn’t that far off.
By contrast, how long have some of the fundraising ‘facts’ been around?
1) people give because we ask (grossly oversimplifies what is really going on, is at least as wrong as it is right and has created the volume mess)
2) ask string formula based on MRC, HPC…whatever
3) that demographics matter to understand root cause
4) that ‘best practice’ is a defined as a set of items (e.g. newsletter, thank you call, thank you letter) instead of root cause needs
5) that we can be successful without knowing anything about the folks giving (ok, cheated there, nobody says this, I don’t think, but it is how the sector operates)
The good news, as Lincoln correctly noted, the future is now, it just isn’t evenly distributed. There are ‘unicorn’ charities out there doing business differently, discovering new facts with new evidence and a constant mindset of inquiry and questioning status quo.
Maybe I missed that this was supposed to be a spoof, and not trying to embarrass anyone, but I think this is not a real letter: http://www.snopes.com/einstein-rejection-letter/
Fake letter, for a lot of reasons
You’re absolutely right Chip. As you note, this is indeed a fake letter as indicated http://www.snopes.com/einstein-rejection-letter/. My point in running it is genuine — too many of us stick rigidly with the status quo, accepting “best practices” and conventional wisdom while rejecting new thinking and evidence that challenges convention.
A letter in English from a Swiss University to a Swiss applicant???