The fallacy of ‘facts tell, stories sell’ 

‘Facts tell, stories sell’, has made the rounds in nonprofit fundraising circles recently, and some seemingly compelling arguments continue to be put forth. This is a catchy cliché, but nonprofits will benefit from realising what Paul Harvey (if you’re under 40, Google it) said every day upon closing his broadcast, ‘…the rest of the story’. 

This memorable rhyming phrase crossed my desk again when I read Claire Axelrad’s Clairification post, back in August 2025. Claire is one of the best and most prolific writers that I am aware of in fundraising circles, and you should sign up for her newsletter, but over the years we have debated the stories vs. numbers issue. 

While I will concede that stories are better at generating emotion and that emotion is an effective channel to action, one cannot summarily dismiss ‘facts’ as ineffective, numbers as a distraction, and stories being the only channel to action. The rest of the story can have many versions, with one being pivotal to the discussion: the much more effective use of facts as a foundation to generate outcomes, which are what donors (investors) really want to see and what really generates big money. 

The shortcomings of relying on stories 

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

Annual appeals, end-of-year updates, and newsletters all have their place in the fundraising portfolio, and it is important to make them as effective as possible. 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. Emotions do move people but seem to only move them to give in smaller, lower amounts. 

A personal ‘ask’ has been found to be the most cost-effective channel for fundraising for all but the largest of nonprofits and those that have universal name recognition. Sure, this ask could certainly involve a story, but trust me, you will need more than that to be successful.

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

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. 

There is some truth to the statement that facts force people to think, not act. But emotion is not the only thing necessary for action. Aristotle taught us over 2,300 years ago that there are three critical elements of persuasion and decision making: 

1. Logos – the appeal to logic and rationality (new brain) 

2. Pathos – the appeal to emotion and connectivity (reptilian brain)

3. Ethos – the appeal to character and credibility (limbic brain) 

Modern neuroscience has confirmed that there are three distinct yet interconnected parts of the brain that are instrumental in decision making, and they align almost perfectly with what the famous Greek philosopher had to say. Stories appeal only to Pathos, and facts and numbers appeal to Logos. Ethos represents that ‘gut feel’ that we need to get to a decision. If a decision doesn’t feel right, we often don’t move forward. If a story sounds too massaged, too manufactured, it won’t move the donor to action. In this age of artificial intelligence (AI), this may become an increasingly bigger concern. 

3. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

The argument for stories typically overreaches by saying all numbers are bad, so it summarily dismisses all of them. The argument typically goes like this:

1. Facts/numbers force the donor to think, not feel.
2. Once they are forced to think, they are less likely to act.

Conclusion: facts/numbers actually get in the way. 

Several academic studies are often employed to bolster this argument, where terms like an ‘identifiable victim’ and ‘drop in the bucket effect’ are introduced. I will be the first person to admit when giving money that a picture of a starving child is more compelling than a page of statistics about hunger. And yes, people will remember more if the message includes a visual than if it does not. That is not the point.

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

Which leads to my next point. 

Facts must be translated to outcomes

Statistics are one thing, outcomes are another. To be effective, facts and numbers must be presented in a way that makes sense to the prospective donor/investor. Over the years, time and time again, 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?’

To make a discussion about the outcomes you deliver even more effective, go to the value of your outcomes to the prospect, the community, or society. This is not always easy, and it is not an exercise in creative writing. In fact, at my organisation (Convergent Nonprofit Solutions) we often use econometric modelling to do this for our clients. Please, though, don’t let the potential complexity scare you. It's not always complicated but does take some data gathering and sound analysis. 

A better version: stories tell, outcomes sell 

After having been in the fundraising trenches for over 31 years now, I am always looking for a better way to raise money. Anything that raises more money in a cost-effective way gets my attention. After hundreds of campaigns, I can say that customised, personal presentations to prospects, armed with information that demonstrates the value of the outcomes that they value, is the key to success. 

Yes, stories help do that. Outcomes close the deal.

Editor’s Note: Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tom would love to start a friendly debate with his fellow SOFII readers. Comment on this article below or email Tom at tralser@convergentnonprofit.com.

IMAGES: Canva