I’m a proud fundraiser. But I feel deep shame and embarrassment about terrible advice I’ve shared in the past concerning the application of behavioural science.

Don’t get me wrong, if I’d been strapped to a lie detector and asked if I genuinely thought I was helping I’d have passed. But sincerity isn’t accuracy.

Like so many in our sector I was fascinated by, and an early convert to, the flood of books that came out a few years back (Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, Cass R. Sunstein’s Nudge, Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational among many others). Their work on the way we process information and make decisions so obviously presented solutions to problems that’ve forever plagued fundraisers. Applying what I’d read could only be a good thing right?

Wrong.

Much as I wanted to be helpful, there’s (at least) one major variable between me and scientists like Kahneman, Sunstein and Ariely which is (drumroll…) they’re scientists and I’m a fundraiser.

In other words, like any other field of science in which I have absolutely no qualification, I had no business talking at conferences as though I did.

Which begs the question, why the hell was I allowed to speak? No airline would allow you to pilot a plane because you’d read about aviation. No hospital would allow you to operate on people because you’d read about surgery. When did our sector decide this science didn’t need scientists; that anyone could do it?

Aside from needing subject matter expertise (i.e. years of dedicated research and training) just to get a handle on fundamentals, it’s axiomatic that behavioural science is an evolving field.

If you’d had the misfortune to be in one of my talks 10 years ago (or anyone else’s 10 minutes ago) you would’ve been told, with unwavering certainty, social proof (telling people what others have done to produce higher compliance) works. Which it does unless it doesn’t.

First Kiki’s done research showing not using it can be more effective than using it. Second Stefano’s research and wrting on personality and motivation would tell you that you’d better be careful how you define “works”. Using it may or may not result in short term compliance, but it’ll be at the expense of long-term irritation.

Now is not the time to be listening to well intentioned amateurs or outright con-artists (although I’m not exactly sure when that time would be). Getting an educated handle on the science of supporter motivation is the single most effective thing any charity can do to survive and thrive.

Next year’s ‘Science of Supporter Motivation’ course that Roger highlighted last week is, to the best of my knowledge, a sector first. Its leaders are not only PHD’s in this field, they both practise these, full time, as fundraisers. As such the insights and expertise they’ll share with you over the five-week course are second to none.

Each week they’ll guide and support you in deeply understanding and applying one of four main fields:

• Identity
• Personality
• Motivation
• Psychological needs

These won’t be looked at from an abstract, academic angle. Rather you’ll see how each has been applied, and more importantly get hands on guidance on how you can apply them.

You can learn more and sign up here.

If you have any questions you’re more than welcome to drop us a line (UK/Europe get in touch with me chulme@thedonorvoice.com , USA/Canada get in touch with Kevin kschulman@thedonorvoice.com Everywhere else either of us will be happy to help).

Christopher Hitchens said, “The most educated person in the world now has to admit that he or she knows less and less, but at least knows less and less about more and more”. If this is true let’s at least pay attention to those who are educated as opposed to those who aren’t.

Charlie

(a reformed, unintended “poser”, now in good stead with his decision science team at DonorVoice)