The Science of Effective Fundraising: Four Common Mistakes to Avoid

Caption: Twenty dollar bill with “uh-oh” written on it


Charities that use their frequently struggle to fundraise effectively. Indeed, while these charities receive plaudits from the impact of donations across sectors, many effective charities have not successfully fundraised large sums outside of donors focused highly on impact.

In many cases, this situation results from the beliefs of key stakeholders at effective charities. Some think that persuasive fundraising tactics are “” and instead assume that presenting hard data and statistics will be optimal as they believe that their nonprofit’s effectiveness can speak for itself.

The belief that a nonprofit’s effectiveness can speak for itself can be very harmful to fundraising efforts as it overlooks the fact that donors do not always optimize their giving for social impact. Instead, studies suggest that donors’ choices are influenced by many other , such as a desire for a warm glow, social prestige, or being captured by engrossing stories. Indeed, charities that have the biggest social impact often than rivals that tell better stories but have a smaller social impact. For example, while one fundraiser collected over and save a single life, most charities struggle to raise anything proportionate for causes that could or lift thousands .

Given these issues, the aim of this article is to use available science on fundraising and social impact to address some of the common misconceptions that charities may have about fundraising and, hopefully, make it easier for effective charities to also become more effective at fundraising. To do this it draws on academic research across different fields to highlight four common mistakes that those who raise funds for effective charities should avoid and suggest potential solutions to these mistakes.

Don’t forget individual victims

Many fundraisers focus on using statistics and facts to convey the severity of the social issues they tackle. However, while fact and statistics are often an , it is important to recognize that . While some individuals are best persuaded to do good deeds through statistics and facts, others are most influenced by the of the suffering. Indeed, it has been found that people often prefer to help a single identifiable victim, rather than many faceless victims; the so-called .

One way in which charities can cover all bases is to complement their statistics by telling stories about one or more of the most compelling victims. Stories have been to be excellent ways of tapping emotions, and stories told using video and audio are likely to be particularly good at creating vivid depictions of victims that compel others to want to help them.

Don’t overemphasize the problem

Focusing on the size of the problem has been shown to be ineffective for at least two reasons. First, most people prefer to give to causes where they can save the . This means that rather than save 100 out of 1,000 victims of malaria, the majority of people would rather use the same or even more resources to save all five out of five people stranded on a boat or one girl stranded in a well with the same amount of resources, even if saving 100 people is clearly the more rational choice. People being reluctant to help where they feel their impact is not going to be significant is often called the .

Second, humans have a tendency to neglect the scope of the problem when dealing with social issues. This is called : people do not scale up their efforts in proportion to a problem’s true size. For example, a donor willing to give $100 to help one person might only be willing to give $200 to help 100 people, instead of the proportional amount of $10,000.

Of course charities often need to deal with big problems. In such cases one solution is to break these big problems into smaller pieces (e.g., individuals, families or villages) and present situations on a scale that the donor can relate to and realistically address through their donation.

Don’t assume that matching donations is always a good way to spend funds

Charitable fundraisers frequently put a lot of emphasis on arranging for big donors to offer to from smaller donors. Intuitively, donation matching seems to be a good incentive for givers as they will generate twice (sometimes three times) the social impact for donating the same amount. However, provides insufficient evidence to support or discourage donation matching: after reviewing the evidence, Ben Kuhn argues that its positive effects on donations are relatively small (and highly uncertain), and that sometimes the effects can be negative.

Given the lack of strong supporting research, charities should make sure to check that donation matching works for them and should also consider other ways to use their funding from large donors. One option is to use some of this money to cover experiments and other forms of to better understand their donors’ reasons for giving. Another is to so that a charity may claim that more of the smaller donors’ donations will go to program costs, or to use for a fundraising campaign.

Don’t forget to empower donors and help them feel good

Charities frequently focus on showing tragic situations to motivate donors to help. However, charities can sometimes go too far in focusing on the negatives as too much negative communication can overwhelm and upset potential donors, which can . Additionally, while people often help due to feeling sadness for others, they also give for the and that they expect to get from helping.

Overall, charities need to remember that most donors want to feel good for doing good and ensure that they achieve this. One reason why the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was such an incredibly effective approach to fundraising was that it gave donors the opportunity to have a . Even when it isn’t possible to think of a clever new way to make donors feel good while donating, it is possible to make donors look good by publicly thanking and praising them for their donations. Likewise it is possible to make them feel important and satisfied by explaining how their donations have been key to resolving tragic situations and helping address suffering.


Remember four key strategies suggested by the research:

1) Focus on individual victims as well as statistics
2) Present problems that are solvable by individual donors
3) Avoid relying excessively on matching donations and focus on learning about your donors
4) Empower your donors and help them feel good.

By following these strategies and avoiding the mistakes outlined above, you will not only provide high-impact services, but will also be effective at raising funds.


Want to make sure I keep writing? Support me on !

Bio: Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is an author, speaker, consultant, coach, scholar, and social entrepreneur specializing in science-based strategies for effective decision-making, goal achievement, emotional and social intelligence, meaning and purpose, and altruism — for more information or to hire him, see his website, .

He runs a nonprofit that helps people use science-based strategies to make effective decisions and reach their goals, so as to build an altruistic and flourishing world, . He also serves as a at Ohio State in the History of Behavioral Science and the Decision Sciences Collaborative. A best-selling , he wrote Find Your Purpose Using Science among other books, and regular contributes to prominent venues, such as , , , The Huffington Post, and elsewhere. He appears regularly on network TV, such as affiliates of and , radio stations such as and , and elsewhere.

Consider signing up to the Intentional Insights newsletter; ; donating; buying . Get in touch with him at .

Follow Gleb Tsipursky on Twitter:



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky


Best-selling author, consultant, coach, speaker on #decisionmaking and #leadership; CEO, Disaster Avoidance Experts