Agitator/DonorVoice

Do You Need Questions Or Answers? We were crammed in the conference room for one of our annual huddles. Roger M. Craver to my left, scribbling something illegible in his notebook. Josh Whichard sat across the table, arms folded like a sentry guarding the gates of skepticism. The agenda was straightforward—assess, plan, argue. The year, 2015(ish). Somewhere between evaluating donor attrition rates and musing about where to eat for lunch I blurted out: "We need to hire a behavioral scientist." Roger froze mid-scribble. Josh’s face tightened, his brow arching so high it practically exited the room. The silence was deafening, punctuated only by the faint hum of the overhead light. To their credit, they didn’t immediately dismiss me, though the skepticism was palpable. Finally, Josh broke the silence: “Why?” And there it was—the critical question. My unpolished reply: "I’m tired of all the subjective opinion-making—including my own. I want better answers." Roger and Josh exchanged confirming glances, "He’s completely lost the plot." They were right—but for the wrong reason. We did need a behavioral scientist but not for better answers but better questions. As fundraisers, we’ve been trained—indoctrinated, really—to chase answers. Conversion rates. Average gift amounts. We slice and dice data like an overzealous chef, always in pursuit of that one magical insight to will fix everything. But here's the rub: better answers don’t produce better outcomes if the questions are wrong. Quality questions are more than half the battle on the effectiveness field. A Harvard Business Review study found teams spending more time defining the problem—getting to the root cause—outperform teams rushing to solutions by nearly 300%. How often do we pause to examine the problem behind the problem? The problem isn't lower conversion rates in acquisition it's, --Understanding the degree to which your acquisition effort is fostering a sense of autonomy --Your assumption that everyone is the same and then sending everyone the same thing --Realizing that asking people to write a check who haven't done so in years is suppressing response --Knowing the difference between faux urgency and what's really required to foster innate motivation to act --Thinking that people give because we ask and therefore, burying them in more asks --Not believing that fundraising best practice only exists to be replaced What we needed were new, big questions that forced us to challenge our assumptions.  And yes, it felt uncomfortable at first. But here’s the kicker: once you start asking better questions, you stop settling for easy answers. You realize the true value of curiosity isn’t in what you know, but in what you don’t know yet. So the next time you find yourself obsessing over the perfect email open rate or the optimal donation button color, stop. Take a breath. And ask yourself: Am I asking the right question? Chances are, the answer will surprise you.

And here is that exchange with Gail From Gail: Kevin, these are really, really terrific ideas for donor engagement. We don’t spend enough time getting feedback from our donors about their “donor experience, for sure!” I am curious about these two: – Try a “Voice of the Donor” panel approach – Use donor advisory councils for major donors Since my consulting company focuses on capital campaigns and major donors, we are always interested in personalized engagement approaches for HNW individuals. Tell me more about the panel approach and Donor Advisory Council idea! Sounds quite promising. Thanks! Gail Perry Kevin Schulman says: Hi Gail – thanks for your note and question about these two approaches. They serve different but complementary purposes. The Voice of the Donor panel can be more qualitative or quantitative. I’ll detail out the more qual approach here. It’s typically 30-40 donors and unlike those faux surveys we’re all tired of, this is genuine, iterative engagement. Here’s how we structure it: -Twice/thrice annual qualitative sessions – 10-30 respondents recruited from the larger panel Quarterly virtual sessions (60-90 mins). It’s a mix of discussion topics and specific feedback requests -Pre-session homework/materials review -Follow-up showing how input shaped decisions -Rotating membership to keep perspectives fresh The magic happens when donors see their fingerprints on your work. Maybe they helped shape a new planned giving brochure or how you report impact. For Donor Advisory Councils, which align perfectly with your capital campaign focus, we take a different approach. These are typically 8-12 major donors who meet 2-3 times annually. The key differences: –More strategic involvement (program direction, growth planning) –Often tied to specific initiatives or campaigns –Higher touch with senior leadership –Clear term limits and expectations –Specific expertise recruitment The critical success factor? Making it real. No manufactured urgency, no rubber-stamp committees. Your major donors didn’t get where they are by not spotting authenticity gaps.

AI Bias AI bias is a hot topic, but not the kind you're thinking of. Let’s talk about a different kind of bias—the kind that fuels the wave of dismissive, viral hot takes like these: --“Relying solely on AI for creative tasks can result in homogenized outputs, stifling innovation and originality.” --“While AI can produce content quickly, it often lacks the depth and nuance that come from human experience and emotion.” --“The rise of AI-generated content is leading to a flood of low-quality material online, making it harder to find genuine human creativity.” These takes are popular and sound insightful, but they’re like a thimbleful of knowledge in an ocean of untapped potential. The real problem isn’t what AI can’t do—it’s the things we think we know about its limitations that just ain’t so. Let’s drop some data anchors to steady ourselves in the swirling currents of hot takes. Creativity: Not Just for Humans Anymore --Professional musicians couldn’t reliably distinguish between AI-composed and human-composed classical pieces. AI’s work was often rated as more original. --Art experts struggled to tell whether abstract artworks were created by AI or humans. In some cases, AI’s pieces were rated as more creative --Readers couldn’t consistently identify whether flash fiction stories (under 1,000 words) were written by humans or AI. --Persuasion and Communication: AI Takes the Lead --AI-generated public health messages designed to increase vaccine uptake outperformed CDC-authored messages, eliciting more positive attitudes and engagement. --Political messages created by AI were rated as more persuasive, easier to read, and more positive in tone than those written by humans. --AI-crafted ads tailored to personality traits performed as well or better than human-created ones in terms of persuasiveness and response rates. Trust and Realism: Seeing Is Believing --AI-generated faces were perceived as more trustworthy and real than actual human faces. --News articles written by AI were indistinguishable from those by professional journalists. --Scientific abstracts generated by AI fooled experts into believing they were human-written. Some were rated higher in quality than human-authored ones. AI doesn’t just produce "good enough" content—it challenges the boundaries of what we consider uniquely human. In creativity, persuasion, and trust, AI is not merely complementing human effort but replacing and amplifying it. It’s a force multiplier, pushing the limits of what’s possible, and a democratizer, making advanced capabilities accessible to all. Critics say AI lacks depth, nuance, or originality, but the evidence tells a different story. If anything, it’s revealing our biases against what AI can achieve. The next time someone dismisses AI as a shortcut to mediocrity, ask them this: Are they basing that opinion on data—or just on what “everyone knows”? Because what we know for sure might just need a serious update.

Is Brand Color Black and White? Name a red charity logo. Now a blue one. For me, it's MSF and UNICEF. The association is instant because logos are like the cover of a book - it’s branding shorthand, connecting emotions and perceptions before you’ve even processed what it stands for. But blue and red are the opening act. Dive deeper, and the background color can flip the script entirely. A white background? Your logo says, “I’m approachable and optimistic.” Switch to black? Now it growls, “Back off”. The emotional tone of a logo isn’t just its primary color but the stage it plays on. Pair a red logo and white background, and it screams cheerfulness and liveliness. Switch to black and suddenly it’s aggressive. Similarly, blue on white exudes calmness and competence, while blue on black risks veering to sadness. These shifts occur automatically, regardless of whether a brand is well-known or obscure, the interplay of color and background remains potent. Amnesty International's black candle logo offers a fascinating case study. In its typical presentation, the black lettering and candle sits in yellow negative space creating a sense of urgency and attention-grabbing warning (think caution signs) which aligns well with a mission highlighting human rights violations. But when the same black candle appears against white it might read differently. White backgrounds tend to amplify positive associations while diminishing negative ones, potentially softening the logo's urgent call to action into something more contemplative or hopeful. Now, not all logos play by the same rules. One mitigating factor is how meaningful the logo design itself is. A meaningful logo is realistic or closely tied to a clear concept and can overpower the background effect. WWF's iconic panda, being a meaningful and recognizable symbol, maintains its emotional consistency across different backgrounds. But a more abstract logo like Oxfam's, and it becomes an emotional shapeshifter, dramatically changing its message depending on its backdrop. While the WWF panda stands firm like a mountain, abstract logos are more like weather vanes - spinning their message with every change in background While most charities aim for positive associations, some causes actually benefit from the gravity a black background provides such as human trafficking or environmental destruction where black amplifying urgency turns their logos from mere symbols into emotional alarm bells. This isn't academic trivia, it's about understanding your logo's background is actually part of your message. Whether designing donor comms or a website, the backdrop choice is secretly whispering to your supporters' subconscious. The bottom line? Trust and emotional connection are everything, these subtle psychological triggers matter. Your logo's background isn't just empty space - it's an active ingredient in your organization's emotional recipe. Choose wisely or get lost in the negative space.

When Authenticity Gets Lost In The Mail I get it. You want engagement. You want donors to feel heard. And someone, somewhere convinced you that a faux-official looking survey with a registration number and a barcode was the way to do it. But here's the thing: Your donors aren't idiots. We recently ran a study looking at donor reactions to these "surveys" - you know the ones. They arrive in official-looking envelopes, have urgent response dates, and somehow only ask questions where the correct answer is "Very Important." The results? Well, they're about as pretty as a bear-proof storage locker being seen as manipulative, disingenuous and an obvious ruse. Let's dissect what's happening here. The survey includes all the greatest hits of manufactured urgency: --A fake survey registration number because nothing says "we value your opinion" like a randomly generated string of characters --A "respond by" date pulled out of thin air --Questions that make "Have you stopped beating your wife?" look nuanced The tragic part? This approach isn't just ineffective - it's actively harmful. You're burning trust and trust is the only real currency in fundraising. So what's the survey alternative? --Use progressive profiling by asking 1-2 meaningful questions at a time --Tag responses in your CRM and actually use them in your segmentation --Follow up to show donors how their input shaped decisions --Ask about donor experience with your communications and use the data to improve --Share donor feedback with program staff --Try a "Voice of the Donor" panel approach --Use donor advisory councils for major donors --Create feedback loops through your acknowledgment process And what about that mailing? This is an iconic, touching infinity piece of Americana. A take your breath away moment, not a barcode.  The DonorVoice lead for this package: Last month, I watched a father lift his daughter onto his shoulders at Valley View. Half Dome was catching the day's last light, and the Merced River was singing its ancient song below. The girl gasped – that pure, unfiltered sound of wonder that only children can make. "Daddy," she whispered, "the mountain is on fire." Your donors don't need or want a gimmick to care. They need to remember the first time they rounded that bend into the valley and felt their heart stop. That's the story worth telling. That's the connection worth making. And that's what your next mailing should be about. P.S. Want behavioral insights delivered to your Inbox to grow you and your program? Text "DVAgitator" to +1 (781) 262-3877

Storytelling: The OG Virtual Reality Headset A story well told is like a mental portal. Researchers actually call it narrative transportation. In donor talk, it’s the difference between a “delete” and a donation. The attention and connection of story is old-school VR, but instead of pixels, it’s the pen. Stories have texture, smell, and weight. When your reader can feel the coldness of the room or see the breath on the window, it’s not just reading anymore; it’s experiencing.  Why would you ever lead off with anything else? We ran a research experiment to measure the way people feel after reading a letter snippet that starts with story vs. what I see more often than not, generic lead-in stating a problem. Which one pulls you in more?  For 100 readers the answer is clear. The story version has vivid, sensory details. It isn't an “unimaginable choice”; it’s plain oatmeal for dinner, it’s kids bundled in sweaters. When you “show, don’t tell,” you take the reader with you. It’s not just Sarah’s story; it’s theirs. Narrative transportation takes readers out of their chairs and into that cold room with Sarah, creating a kind of empathetic immersion. The result? A higher likelihood to give, driven by a connection that’s felt, not just understood. Think about Snippet A’s lead-in: too many families in our community are facing an unimaginable choice. It sounds serious but stays abstract, like a news clip or public announcement. It’s generic, almost distant. Our minds gloss over phrases like this because they don’t conjure a scene. It’s telling, not showing. The brain likes information with texture, and a good story is full of it. Sensory details make the scene real and trigger empathy—the kind that makes readers feel a problem, not just read about it. Research supports that sensory language activates different parts of the brain, which lights up the same way as if you’re actually experiencing the event. Three Ways to Apply This Tomorrow: 1) Start with a scene, not a statement 2) Replace every abstract phrase ("facing challenges") with specific details ("stretching oatmeal to last the week") 3) Test your copy by asking: "Can I see, feel, or hear what I'm describing?" P.S. Want behavioral insights delivered to your Inbox to grow you and your program? Text "DVAgitator" to +1 (781) 262-3877

I Just Ate, Try to Sell Me Food More recent donors are more likely to give than less recent. Is there anything more accepted in fundraising? Comparing the recent donor group to the less recent is a bit like judging who’s hungrier based on who just ate. The just ate group will statistically look like "eaters" more than the haven't eaten group but any restaurant would prefer the latter for today's sale and tomorrow's. Millions of donors are "anniversary" donors, consistently giving once a year, no more, no less. This group is likely to be a large segment on your donor file. For these donors less recency = higher likelihood to give. This chart shows this anniversary donor group for two different charities. The shape of both lines is similar, showing increased likelihood to give (y axis) as each day passes and the donor becomes less recent but closer to their anniversary date. Only the latter matters to the donor, which brings us to the main difference in these lines. --The Dark Orange Charity solicits their anniversary donors every month. This charity ignores what matters to the donor. --The Light Orange Charity only solicits these end of year donors towards end of year. This charity tailors their approach to match the donor's preference. Dark Orange donors had their in/mail box fill up with emails and letters. December finally arrived, and though most gave their usual annual gift, it felt more out of obligation than enthusiasm. But a few of these folks tuned out and stopped giving. Light Orange donors got a few touchpoints to build a sense of competence and connection and by the time December rolled around, they were excited to give again. The $250 difference in LTV is stark.  This isn't just an anniversary donor thing. Every single donor is less likely to eat (give again) right after eating (giving). Every single one.  You assume the opposite with more recent = more likely to give again because you're comparing donors instead of matching asking to the person's individual behavior. Giving isn’t about topping off a tank that’s always running low. I just ate, I don't want to eat again for awhile.

Identity Triggers Only Work When They Matter Teachers were asked by their school district to complete a survey. The experiment was a 2x2 design (one of our faves shown in top table): The result? A nothingburger. No difference in survey participation between A-D, randomly assigned groups. To quote Paul Harvey, “And now for the rest of the story.” Researchers noticed a difference in survey participation on one of their external, control variables - teacher effectiveness. More effective teachers were more likely to fill out the survey. This led to a post-hoc analysis that found what we often find; test ideas work differently for different people. Priming the Identity of the teacher by referencing "teacher" in the email survey invite did work but only for those teachers who are good teachers (bottom graphic). Identities matter when they matter. Calling me a donor or dog lover or conservationist or researcher or father only matters if, 1) I am that thing and 2) That thing matters to me A proxy for the latter is the person is good at it. To be good at something requires effort over time, which requires intrinsic motivation. Those are hallmarks of an Identity (or aspiring one) that matters.

Social Movement Paradox This post was written on November 4th.  Just breathe. Whether you're R or D or believe Trump is savior or anti-Christ there will likely be social activism afoot and aspiring, hopefully civil movements sustained or birthed. A movement paradox however is that what gains media attention and pressure on institutions also reduces popular support - i.e. the degree of extremeness. In six wide ranging experiments across a host of scenarios the overwhelming evidence is: --Most people have a shared view of “extreme” that doesn’t differ along racial and political lines and even pre-existing attitudes --This shared view results in extreme protest reducing support for the movement and the broader cause. Why? Extreme protest is seen as immoral. This immoral judgement reduces the ability of people across race and political and belief spectrums to socially identify with the protesters. We’ll cover one of these experiments: Anti-Trump Rally Participants watched one of three videos, Control: A video of men building a deck Moderate Condition: A real video of a Trump protest with protesters holding up signs and chanting, but not acting in an aggressive manner and the reporter describing the protests as "heated but civil". Extreme Condition: A real video where anti-Trump protesters gathered in a busy street, physically blocking carloads of Trump supporters and described by the reporter as creating a "potentially dangerous situation". Participants answered these questions after the video: --How extreme they find the activist behavior to be --How much they socially identify with the activists --How similar they feel to the activists --How willing they are to join the movement --How much they support the activists --How much they support the cause of the activists Those in the extreme condition felt less social identification with the movement, less support for the protesters and less support for the overarching cause. This happened for everybody, including liberals and anti-Trump people. What’s more, the extreme protests caused those who supported Trump before seeing the videos to support him even more. “Extreme” protest actions lead to less popular support for a movement, including those who are most aligned with it. The reason is simple and involved at the same time – the acts are deemed immoral by everyone. That moral judgment undermines the pro, “in-group” bias that the movements supporters naturally have and reinforces the “out-group” bias of those who don’t naturally identify with the protesters, movement or cause.  This strongly suggests norms of civility (morality) are more powerful than even our own alignment with fellow members of a group. The net net for movements is to simultaneously emphasize the corruption and immorality of the targeted group while also directly and explicitly addressing why their actions aren’t immoral.

Getting People to Part With Their Money is So Easy I routinely see some version of this on the world wide web: 1) Ask, thank, report back. Repeat. 2) But make sure you get that 2nd ask in the first 90 days otherwise, people are much less likely to give. 3)And don't forget, do some multi-channel matching luggage exercise mimicking the mail piece in email and social. 1, 2, 3. Easy Peasy. I have a jumbled, disorganized swipe file and this data chart is in it. I can't locate the source but wish I could give credit because it's a great piece of reporting. It's a four year snapshot of 50,000 donors acquired in 2019. Let's take a walk through the primrose of rows and columns. From left to right here's what jumps out at me: --Retention of new donors is 42%, not in the 20's as is often cited, if you merely extend your horizon. --That still leaves a whopping 58% who never give again. --Of those who give again, only 17% (7% of the total donor count) do so in the first 3 months. By my math, that means 83% of 2nd gift givers don't do it in the first 90 days --The biggest single spike in 2nd gift is after many charities have already declared them at-risk or "lapsed" - 13 to 24 months - where the plurality (25%) of 2nd gift givers give. --The average number of months between first and second gift is 12.6 Your best rev per donor is your annual/anniversary giver - giving 10 to 12 months after first gift. Let me also try to preempt the "yeah but's". --Yes, your mileage may vary but we've since replicated this in whole in part (with post covid data) for clients and the story is similar --I don't know the frequency of solicitation for this charity but I'd wager it's weight is in metric tons --Do you think the high solicitation frequency and/or rapidity is causing the giving? Imagine a world where some of these 50,000 donors are connected to your mission personally and maybe even have some awareness of your brand. Let's say most of them live in the 0 to 3 month, 7% bar. Do you think their future giving goes away if you don't solicit right away? --Let's say for argument sake you do lose some giving if you don't solicit early and often. You believe the soliciting causes, in part at least, the giving. Are you not open at all to the possibility that the cause of your "success" is also the cause of your 58% failure? --58% is a lot bigger than 42%. I have a love-hate relationship with my frequency of solicitation posts. It feels 100% necessary and 100% yesterday's news at the same time. It's also one-hand clapping because cleaning up the mess we created on volume is just that. It does nothing for fostering more personalized, tailored experiences - it's just less of the one-size-fits-all crappy ones. Getting people to consistently part with their money and feel psychologically satisfied is really freaking hard.