Dear Tom,

Hello, my friend!  First, thank you for saying such kind words about my writing and for encouraging folks to sign up to receive said writing direct to their inbox. It is much appreciated.

Now, let me address the premise of your SOFII article, published in the Opinions and Debates showcase:

Our approaches to fundraising are really not so different!  Catchy phrases aside (my ‘facts tell, stories sell’ and your ‘stories tell, outcomes sell’), we’re both looking to shift folks away from a transactional approach to a transformational one. To a felt experience where the donor is able to connect their own values with the values enacted by the organisation. And their own purpose with the organisation’s purpose.

I know ‘transformational’ connotes mostly major, capital and legacy gift fundraising to some. After all, a major gift can transform the trajectory of an organisation. But any gift that is meaningful for the donor can create a transformative relationship and begin a philanthropic journey.  One where both the donor and the nonprofit express their existential purpose and become connected through a value-for-value exchange.

Okay, back to you. I know at Convergent Nonprofit Solutions you talk a lot about impact, mission alignment with investor interests, and delivered outcomes. Terrific approach! That alignment with investor (aka donor) interests is really the heart of successful philanthropy facilitation. We must think about the value we offer, while simultaneously considering the values our donors seek. 

Ultimately we want to align with, or change, how people think and feel – so they’ll both identify with and invest in our cause.

How do we do this effectively?  As you suggest, it’s all about communications. Whether in writing or face-to-face, we’re endeavoring (through stories and/or facts) to open the door to our shared and yearned-for outcomes through expressions of our organisational values. Not so much what we do, but how and, especially, why we do it. You can get to the why with outcomes reporting too, but in my honest opinion (IMHO) only if you describe those outcomes using stories.

• ‘We helped 200 orphaned children last year with food, shelter, education and a caring environment.’ Fact-based; engages the brain.
• ‘Our doors were opened to 200 orphaned children last year, like Genesis who was abandoned with HIV+ and would not have survived without medical attention, nutritious food and doting round-the-clock caregivers.’  A fact, bolstered by a story; engages emotions.

Let’s get to what you describe as the shortcomings of relying on stories. 

1. They make good copy, but not necessarily good fundraising. 

You write: ‘Getting people emotionally involved in a compelling story certainly helps move them to action. Experience has shown, though, that this action, when driven by an appeal letter or newsletter, is typically transactional rather than transformational.’

Of course, you will generate larger – and more cost-effective -- gifts when you make an in-person ask. And I encourage all nonprofits, no matter their size or shape, to develop – in addition to donor acquisition -- a major gift fundraising programme. And, as you suggest, good major gift fundraising does involve individualised strategic plans of thoughtful donor cultivation (where you get to know the donor well enough to know their values, interests and desires so you can make the optimal match). This doesn’t mean stories aren’t good fundraising. Nor does it mean emotions only move people to give in smaller amounts. 

2. One log doesn’t make much of a fire. 

You note Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle of logos (reason), pathos (emotion) and ethos (credibility) and write:‘The gist of the stories-only camp is that emotion is the only thing that moves a donor to action. It may be the easiest, but it is certainly not the only and may not be the best.’

You’re right. Emotion is not the only pathway to philanthropy. And combining approaches can be effective, especially on a targeted basis when you know the type of communication your donor most favours.  However, pathos always comes into play, and is the best strategy for homing in on your would-be donor’s sense of identity, emotions, and values to create a sense of connection. Yes, a poorly-told or artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled story may not do the job. The answer is not necessarily to go with facts instead. It’s to tell better, more resonant stories.

3. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

You agree people will more readily give when presented with a story and visual of a starving child than a page of statistics about hunger, yet write: ‘The argument for stories typically overreaches by saying all numbers are bad, so it summarily dismisses all of them.’

No, I’m not dismissing all numbers. I’m fine with them used in the context of major gift fundraising, and paired with some compelling, emotional storytelling that makes folks want to enter into the narrative and become a (hopefully heroic) part of the happy ending. However, I’ll have to see a study that disproves the famous ‘Save the Children’ experiment showing stories only outpulls both facts and facts + stories in a written appeal. When it comes to moving people to action, I still hold that when we read dry, factual arguments, we read with our dukes up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we’re absorbed in a story we drop our intellectual guard. We are moved emotionally and this seems to leave us defenseless – so we can then go with our gut.

You then write: ‘Facts and numbers cannot just be listed; they must be made real to the potential donor by taking them a step or two further.’ 

I 100 per cent agree! And, since this took you to your next point, let’s go there.

4. Facts must be translated to outcomes.

You write: ‘facts and numbers must be presented in a way that makes sense to the prospective donor/investor… the way that makes the most sense to these potential funders is to demonstrate the impact you have on your primary customer. This meets head on the common concerns that a real discussion surfaces, such as “what makes you different than the other nonprofits?” or “what difference do you really make?”’

Yes, of course. Here you’re saying (and we agree) facts, alone, don’t work. You then go on to talk about pairing facts with econometric modeling as opposed to what you term ‘an exercise in creative writing’. I don’t know that we need place these approaches in opposition to one another, or to disparage strong, emotional writing.

I love good science, and no doubt there are donors who will demand something like econometric modeling. I certainly wouldn’t ignore them or fight with them about this! At the same time there is plenty of psychology, neuroscience and behavioral economics pointing to the fact our attitudes, fears, hopes, and values are strongly influenced by story. And, in fact, fiction seems to be more effective at changing beliefs than writing specifically designed to persuade through argument and evidence [see Jonathan Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal]. It’s just that the story told must be purposefully crafted to resonate with donor identities, values and needs [see Peter Guber, Tell to Win]. 

Final thoughts

The more absorbing a story we tell, the more likely we are to alter the prospective donor’s thinking. When they are thus moved to act, it will indeed be transformational – for them, for the organisation, and for the community writ large.

IMAGES: Canva