Who You Send It To vs. Who It’s For
Who do I send this appeal to?
vs.
What do I send to this person?
Both sound similar are are about communication, segmentation, planning. But they represent entirely different ways of thinking.
The first question treats the donor as a distribution problem, a targeting exercise. The process is logical, efficient, and deeply familiar.
The second treats the donor as a human and unique, it’s a relevance exercise. The process is slower, sometimes messier, and far more grounded in psychology than production.
Which question does your fundraising strategy focus on? Everyone wants to be “donor-centric” or “audience-first” but not everyone wants to change the process that makes that true.
Most fundraising says it’s doing the second but is structurally designed to do the first. You can tell by the inputs, the language, and the conversations that happen along the way. Here’s what those two worlds tend to look like in practice:
| **Who do I send this appeal to?** | **What do I send to this person?** |
|---|---|
| Starts with last year’s calendar or a production schedule of “key moments.” | Starts with understanding the person, their motivations, worldview, and identity. |
| Strategy meetings focus on “what drops when.” | Planning centers on “what will matter most to this kind of person.” |
| Audience labels make sense internally: LYBUNT, SYBUNT, Active, Lapsed. | Audience descriptions make sense to the person: Conservationist, Veteran, Dog Lover, Caretaker. |
| Creative brief opens with “the goal is $X.” | Creative brief opens with “the person we’re talking to is…” |
| Feedback sounds like “make it match the spring theme.” | Feedback sounds like “it doesn’t sound like her.” |
| Testing asks “which version performs better?” so can send winner to everyone | Testing asks “did the tailored version beat the one size fits all?” |
| Personalization means merge fields and variable paragraphs. | Personalization means message relevance, a story that fits the person. |
| The plan lives in Excel. | The plan reads like a story that mirrors the values and goals of the donor. |
| Each appeal could swap places with another and still make sense. | Each appeal feels like it could only be written for that person. |
Culture may eat strategy for breakfast, but process eats everything else and quietly answers the question you thought you were still asking.
Kevin
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