Beginning the narrative arc
If there is one key rule in storytelling, it is this: The main character must want something. This motivation starts with backstory.
In backstory, we learn who the main character is. We learn about his people, values, and history. (This is his original identity). Later, we’ll learn his goal. (This is the victory). An inciting incident will force a choice. (This is the challenge.) It will force a choice to go on a journey to pursue that goal.
But this pursuit is compelling only because we know why the goal is important to him. The goal must link to his people, values, and history. It must connect with his backstory.
If there is one key rule in fundraising, it is this: The donor must want something the charity can offer. This motivation starts with the donor’s backstory.
In backstory, we learn who the donor is. We learn about his people, values, and history as it relates to the cause. (This is his original identity.) Later, we’ll learn his philanthropic goal. (This is the victory.) A compelling ask will force a choice. (This is the challenge.) It will force a choice to make a gift to pursue that goal.
But this pursuit is compelling only because the donor knows why the goal is important to him. The goal must link to his people, values, and history. It must connect with his backstory.
Openings
No story can be a powerful fundraising story until it becomes the donor’s story. This happens when the donor identifies with the story’s people, values, or plot. Questions can help. Questions can uncover connections with the donor’s identity.
The donor’s identity comes from the donor’s backstory. It comes from the donor’s
History (life story),
People (family and identifying community), and
Values.
Questions or prompts can link the charity or cause with this identity. For example,
“Tell me about your connection to [this charity].”
“How has [this cause] been important in your life?”
“Have others in your life been affected by [this cause]?”
Questions can explicitly connect with origins. For example,
“When did you first get interested in [this cause]?”
“Is there anyone in your family history who also cared about [this cause]?”
This can even inspire monomyth framing. The origin connections become the starting point in the donor-hero’s journey. For example,
“Tell me about your journey since you graduated from the university.”214
“Tell me about your journey since you were first diagnosed.”
“Tell me about your journey since you first became involved in [this cause].”
This might look like simple information gathering. And, yes, that does happen. But the questions are important even if we already know the answer.
The questions are powerful because the donor is answering them. Restating a connection or belief strengthens it.215 This encourages actions that match. In fundraising, this encourages donations.
Does it work? Let’s look at some experimental results.
Experiment 1
In one experiment216 some people were simply told about causes. They read,
“Charity includes organizations supporting causes such as environmental conservation, cancer research, animal welfare, international relief for the poor and needy, and youth activities.”
Others were instead asked questions. They were asked to rate the importance of the causes. They read,
“Please rate the importance of the work of charities in the following areas: environmental conservation, cancer research, animal welfare, international relief to the poor and needy, and youth activities.” [The response scale was from “0=absolutely no importance” to “100=absolutely the greatest importance”]
Did asking questions make a difference? Yes. The likelihood of donating to the American Cancer Society was 17% for the first group. It was 26% for the second. For the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the increase was from 15% to 23%. For UNICEF, it went from 12% to 17%. For CARE, it went from 9% to 14%. For YMCA/YWCA it went from 11% to 16%. For all ten charities tested across all five cause types, the outcome was the same. The likelihood of donating always went up. Questions worked.
Experiment 2
In another experiment, people were asked to donate to conserve the environment. But some were first asked an identity question. They were asked to describe “ways in which they would have a positive impact on future generations.”217 Those people donated nearly 50% more.
Why? Further analysis gave the answer. This question increased concern for “what future generations think of me.”218 It increased interest in leaving a positive “legacy” or “mark on society.” The question highlighted the importance of one aspect of the donor’s identity. That aspect connected to the charitable cause. (Environmental conservation has a “positive impact on future generations.”) As a result, donations increased.
Experiment 3
A later experiment219 tested willingness to donate to The Nature Conservancy. Some were first asked about their desired future identity. (This was like the prior experiment.220) Others were asked about their life history with conservation.221 Still others were asked about family connections to conservation.222
Donation likelihood went up
Slightly for the future identity questions,
More for the life history questions, and
Even more for the family connection questions.
However, it went up the most for those who were asked all three sets of questions. Each type of identity connection helped encourage the gift. Questions worked. More questions worked better.
Bequest experiments
Linking with the donor’s identity can also work with bequest gifts. One experiment searched for the best description of a charitable bequest gift. It tested 24 different descriptions in four iterative rounds. Nearly 10,000 people responded.223 The description most likely to trigger giving was
“Make a gift to charity in your will to support causes that have been important in your life.”
This description links
Values (“important”),
Life history (“important in your life”),
A cause (“causes that have been important in your life”), and
A gift (“a gift… to support causes that have been important in your life”).
A neuroimaging study found similar results.224 People were asked about making bequest gifts to different charities. As “autobiographical visualization” increased, so did intentions to make the gift. The neural signature for life story connections predicted bequest giving intentions.
A qualitative study found similar results.225 It interviewed people with charitable bequest plans. It asked them why they picked those charities. The answer? These charities linked with their life stories.
Life story reminiscence can be powerful. But it’s most powerful during older ages.226 This is when major lifetime or legacy gift decisions are often made.227
In another experiment228 people increased bequest gift intentions when asked about
Family member connections to the cause, and
A tribute or memorial bequest gift honoring the family member.
This worked for all 30 charities tested.229 These came from 13 different cause types.
In all these experiments, the answer was the same. Linking the charity or cause with the donor’s identity (history, people, or values) worked. A compelling story starts with backstory. It starts with identity.
Social norms experiments
One of the most powerful messages in giving experiments is the social norm. This is the message that “people like me do things like this.” It shows that the donor’s community supports the values, the charity, and the donation. It connects the gift with standing in the community. It connects the gift with a source of the donor’s identity.
The social norm works. But experiments show one thing works even better. Asking questions about the social norm.
One field experiment asked people to give to a local child relief charity. With just this request, 48% gave. Others were first told that 2/3 of people in the country gave to charity last year. In this group, 61% gave. (This is the social norm effect.) Before being told this, another group first answered a question. They guessed the share of people who gave to charity last year. In this group, 78% gave.230 Asking worked better than just telling.
In one lab experiment, people could choose to give to other players or not.231 There were three groups.
In the normal group, one-third chose to give.
In a second group, people first answered a question. They guessed the share of others who had given in previous games. In this group, two-thirds gave. Asking about others’ giving actions doubled giving.
In a third group, people first answered a different question. They guessed the share of others who had said that people should give. In this group, 72% gave. Asking about others’ giving beliefs more than doubled giving.
Another lab experiment found the same effect for donations to charity.232 In giving decisions, social norms are powerful. But, here too, the same rule applies. Asking works better than telling.
The magic of follow-up questions
The opening starts the conversation. It asks about a connection with the donor’s history, people, or values. But the real power comes in the follow-up questions.
Follow-up questions ask the speaker to elaborate.233 Generic versions include,
“How do you mean?”
“What else?”
“What happened next?”
“Really? Tell me more.”
Even better is the two-part follow-up question. The first part asks for elaboration. The second part reflects something the speaker just said. This shows interest and active listening.
“Tell me more about ….”
“What happened after you …?”
“What’s an example of …?”
“How does … fit into the picture?”
Reflective communication isn’t just about words. James Gillespie explains,
“It often helps to match or mirror your pitch, inflection, and rate of speech with your prospect’s voice patterns.”234
Anne Melvin adds,
“Be conscious of matching the donor’s body language and word choice. I’m an energetic, fast speaker, but I slow my speech down and lower my energy level to match that of a donor when necessary.”235
Follow-up questions and reflective communication work. They elicit information. But they do more. They show we care.
Follow-up questions in research
Many experienced fundraisers will say, “It’s all about relationships.” And that’s often true. But how can we make this happen? Research provides some insights.
Questions can help. People who elicit personal information are better liked. This is particularly true in long-term relationships.236 Several experiments showed
“people who ask more questions, particularly follow-up questions, are better liked by their conversation partners …”237
This even works for dating. One experiment found
“speed daters who ask more follow-up questions during their dates are more likely to elicit agreement for second dates …” 238
Questions can help. But in experiments, not all questions worked. Introductory questions didn’t do much. These were questions like,
“Hey, how’s it going?”
Questions that switched topics could actually hurt. These were questions like,
Person A: “I am working at a dry cleaners.”
Person B: “What do you like doing for fun?”239
Socratic fundraising involves questions. But these are questions from active listening.240 They are questions of appreciative inquiry. They are follow-up questions. Researchers explain,
“follow-up questions seem to have special power. They signal to your conversation partner that you are listening, care, and want to know more. People interacting with a partner who asks lots of follow-up questions tend to feel respected and heard.”241
One early study called those skilled at eliciting information, “Openers.”242 How were such people different? On personality scales, they scored high243 in
Perspective taking
Sociability
Self-esteem, and
Awareness of one’s own thoughts and feelings.
In conversation experiments, these “Openers” behaved differently. Researchers found,
“In addition to being more receptive and attentive, high openers may also actively elicit more disclosure from their partners by asking more follow-up questions.”244
Follow-up questions work. They elicit information. They build relationships. But the fundraiser is not just being friendly. The fundraiser is the guiding sage in the donor’s hero story.
The questions have a point. The point is to connect the donor’s original identity with the cause or the charity. This is the first step in the donor-hero’s journey.
Why the first step isn’t enough
This first step reminds donors of their connections to the charity. This encourages support. But this, by itself, will never motivate a major gift. Why not?
Consider this. Suppose a donor loves our charity. So, he donates $100. Great! But how can we motivate a gift of $1,000? Can we make the donor love our charity ten times more than he already does? Probably not.
Instead, we need to move beyond just connecting the donor to the charity. To get the rest of the gift, we need the rest of the story. We need to uncover a personally meaningful victory. We need to find a victory that is worth ten times more to the donor.
How? By asking questions.