Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to the Click & Pledge Fundraising Command Center Podcast!
Welcome to the Click & Pledge Fundraising Command Center Podcast – your mission control for mastering modern philanthropy. Every month, we equip you with the insights, tools, and strategies you need to elevate your impact. We believe in understanding the why, mastering the what, and showcasing the how of successful fundraising. Tune in every Monday for a new perspective:
The Why
Start your month with the big picture. "The Why" is our thought-leadership series that dives into the deep, foundational concepts behind our work. Every first Monday, we explore the science, philosophy, and psychology of fundraising, technology, and giving. This show isn't just about what you do; it's about providing a framework for why you do it. Join us as we connect big ideas from neuroscience, behavioral economics, and cognitive science to the future of philanthropy.
The What
Get to know your toolkit. "The What" is our product-focused series where we go "under the hood" of the Click & Pledge platform. Every second Monday, we deconstruct our features, reveal the "story behind the product," and explain what our technology is designed to do. If you want to understand the architecture, the design, and the specific problems our tools solve, this is your guide to the blueprint.
The How
Learn from the leaders. "The How" is our community showcase, where we pass the microphone to the experts: your peers. Every third Monday, we invite nonprofit leaders, fundraisers, and innovators to share how they are using our platform to run successful campaigns, engage donors, and grow their impact. These are their stories, their strategies, and your real-world templates for success.
Welcome to this edition of the Click and Pledge's fundraising command center podcast where we talk the why, the what, and the how in the Click and Pledge's ecosystem. Mhmm. This is the why series and we are the Click and Pledge team. Our mandate is, you know, it's pretty simple to educate the public and our customers on how to be truly effective fundraisers in, well, in the modern era.
Speaker 2:And today we're doing a really profound deep dive. We're getting into the human motivation for giving. We're going to challenge, I think, the oldest assumption in philanthropy.
Speaker 1:Which is?
Speaker 2:That people donate purely out of some kind of vague altruism or even guilt. Right. In a world that is just saturated with information, with volatility, those traditional appeals are just they're losing their power.
Speaker 1:They absolutely are. The critique we keep running into is that the old narrative, it just fails. It fails because it views the donor as a passive spectator, someone who should, you know, spare some resources for a problem that feels very separate from them. They're basically a wallet to be tapped when the need is greatest.
Speaker 2:But human behavior is never passive. What we're seeing in the research is a really powerful shift. The idea that donors are not motivated by vague altruism but by a deep biological drive towards self regulation.
Speaker 1:Self regulation.
Speaker 2:Yes. We call this framework allostatic foraging and it suggests that the act of giving is an active strategic choice that the donor is making to fix something internal, something in their own nervous system.
Speaker 1:That is a huge idea. So our mission for this deep dive is to really unpack that whole concept of allostatic foraging. We're going to combine a economics, neuroscience and really discuss how it fundamentally changes the language a nonprofit should use.
Speaker 2:It has to. The focus must radically shift from asking for help to offering the donor a sophisticated solution to their own internal stress.
Speaker 1:Okay, so where do we start?
Speaker 2:Let's start with a foundational economic truth.
Speaker 1:Alright, let's unpack this with a metaphor I think everyone gets, the coffee shop. This analogy just perfectly grounds the idea that every transaction, even a charitable one, is fundamentally a self interested exchange. And that's okay.
Speaker 2:Yes, it's a good thing. Think about how it works. A well run coffee shop never begs. No. They don't put a sign out that says please donate so we can pay the rent.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:They offer a product. They offer a dignified, clear exchange of value.
Speaker 1:And crucially, the customer walking in isn't thinking, oh, I need to help that struggling barista.
Speaker 2:Never.
Speaker 1:They're walking in because they are tired. They are operating at a deficit of energy. Maybe they're stressed from work. They have low blood sugar, they're experiencing a failure to maintain what we'd call homeostasis, their optimal internal state.
Speaker 2:Exactly, they buy the coffee, the caffeine, the whole ritual to restore their own comfort, their focus, their energy. They are buying a solution for themselves.
Speaker 1:It's an act of self care or self regulation to use your term.
Speaker 2:And this dignified exchange is the engine of the entire economy.
Speaker 1:It's so powerful because it reframes self interest. Not greed, it's the foundational drive that enables mutual benefit. And this is classic economics, This goes all the way back to Adam Smith.
Speaker 2:Indeed. Smith's famous observation holds true across all commerce and we suggest it applies to philanthropy just as much. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Speaker 1:That quote just validates this entire approach. The customer wants dinner to regulate their own hunger and the butcher provides it to regulate their own finances. It's a win win. It's an equal exchange of agency.
Speaker 2:And the key takeaway for nonprofits is to realize they are part of this very same loop. When a nonprofit asks for money, they need to recognize they are not just holding out a hat, they are offering a high value tool in exchange for resources.
Speaker 1:They're selling relief.
Speaker 2:They're selling relief. But okay, how do we bridge that gap between buying a latte for fatigue and donating say $10,000 to save a species?
Speaker 1:Right. That's a big jump.
Speaker 2:And that's where we move from economics into modern neuroscience. This is where we define the biological drive behind giving. We start with a concept called prediction error. Every single human carries an internal model of how the world should operate.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:It's deeply tied to our personal values, sense of safety. So if you value environmental stability, your internal model includes the basic premise, the ocean should be clean.
Speaker 1:And we rely on that model. It's central to our sense of safety, of predictability. So what happens when you turn on the news and see a massive oil spill? Or a report on child hunger, right, in your own neighbor?
Speaker 2:The external reality, the oil spill, it contradicts your internal model. The ocean should be clean. Your brain registers that contradiction instantly. That is the prediction error. The world is not behaving as your nervous system expects it to.
Speaker 1:And what we've observed is that this prediction error isn't just an intellectual disagreement, it's felt biologically as intense dissonance.
Speaker 2:Anxiety.
Speaker 1:Stress, right. We call this internal feeling, this neurological misalignment world pain. The suffering that's happening outside has now become a biological problem inside the donor's nervous system.
Speaker 2:It's a massive critical shift in perspective. If you want to understand why people donate, you have to realize they are acting to mitigate their own pain.
Speaker 1:Their own pain.
Speaker 2:World pain creates an internal imbalance that is highly uncomfortable and the organism needs to correct it.
Speaker 1:So if I feel that world pain and that stress that the world is wrong, human response is what you call foraging. Yes. I start searching for a tool, an action, a behavior that will resolve that stress, fix the prediction error, and bring back my internal comfort.
Speaker 2:And whether I forage for a sugar boost to fix low blood sugar, or I forage for a high impact non profit to fix the cognitive dissonance caused by global inequality, the mechanism is the same.
Speaker 1:Anxiety resolution.
Speaker 2:The donation is simply the most efficient path to personal psychological relief. That is allostatic foraging in action.
Speaker 1:I appreciate the theory here but let's make it practical. That sounds a little cold doesn't it? If I tell a donor they're just giving because they're selfishly trying to stop their own world pain won't they be offended?
Speaker 2:That is the most important question. And no, this framework doesn't negate compassion, it operationalizes it. We stop treating the donor as just a passive wallet and we start viewing them as an economist agent. Yeah. Someone engaged in a powerful process of self actualization.
Speaker 1:An agent. I like that word. They are actively seeking a way to align the external reality with their own internal deep seated values?
Speaker 2:The choice to give is driven by a desire for internal consistency.
Speaker 1:So if they are an agent, then they're making a purchase. They're not buying a mug or a thank you note. What are they buying?
Speaker 2:We suggest they are buying impact. They're literally purchasing a correction to the world state that successfully alleviates their personal prediction error and the stress that comes with it.
Speaker 1:So the nonprofit's job is to offer the clearest, most direct pathway to that relief.
Speaker 2:They're selling effectiveness.
Speaker 1:Precisely. They are investing in their own internal peace. The currency is money, but the return they seek is emotional and neurological relief. It's the restoration of their world view that says the world is chaotic, yes, but I am doing something effective about it. That elevates the whole transaction.
Speaker 2:It does.
Speaker 1:Now this shift in the donor's identity from a passive wallet to an autonomous agent that must require a complete overhaul of the nonprofit's identity too.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:If the donor is an agent foraging
Speaker 2:for
Speaker 1:impact, what is the organization?
Speaker 2:The organization is not a charity in the old passive sense. We suggest the nonprofit is the instrument of agency. It is the specialized professional tool that the donor hires to solve their problem.
Speaker 1:The problem of world pain.
Speaker 2:Their problem of world pain.
Speaker 1:This means the pitch. The pitch has to change radically. Give me an example. The old model versus this new one.
Speaker 2:Okay, let's analyze the traditional weakness based pitch. The old model says something like, We are weak, we are failing, please support us so we can survive.
Speaker 1:Right. It positions the donor as a hero saving a beggar. It creates this dependent, unequal relationship.
Speaker 2:And it feels good for a moment, maybe, but it's exhausting. Puts all the pressure on the donor to be the savior.
Speaker 1:Okay, so what's the new model?
Speaker 2:The new model, the one based on allostatic forging and this instrument of agency idea has to be centered on capacity and effectiveness.
Speaker 1:So the pitch shifts?
Speaker 2:The pitch shifts from 'please help us' to something more like you are stressed by this measurable problem and we are the specialized high capacity instrument you can use to fix it immediately.
Speaker 1:That's a huge psychological difference. Instead of communicating need, you're communicating power and efficiency.
Speaker 2:That's why we rely so heavily on the metaphor of the exoskeleton. We suggest thinking of the nonprofit as a high-tech extension of the donor's will.
Speaker 1:Okay. Unpack that a little more. Exoskeleton.
Speaker 2:Mhmm.
Speaker 1:How does thinking like that actually help a fundraiser write, you know, better copy?
Speaker 2:It's a great question. Because it all comes down to capacity. Think about it. A single person. Right?
Speaker 2:Mhmm. A single human body standing alone cannot lift a two ton boulder that's blocking a road. The problem is just too large.
Speaker 1:Right. It's overwhelming.
Speaker 2:But if you put that same person, that autonomous agent inside an exoskeleton, suddenly they have this incredible power.
Speaker 1:They can move mountains, basically.
Speaker 2:Exactly. The nonprofit is that machine. It's that technological extension, that sophisticated tool. It enables their agency. It allows the donor to perform an action fixing a huge social problem that they couldn't possibly perform alone.
Speaker 1:And by doing that, it directly resolves their internal world pain.
Speaker 2:So when you write a fundraising appeal, you are not asking them to donate, you are offering them the controls to a very, very powerful piece of machinery.
Speaker 1:The language should reflect that
Speaker 2:Mhmm.
Speaker 1:So instead of a subject line that says kids are starving, please donate, which just emphasizes the pain and the weakness. Mhmm. The new pitch might be something like activate your exoskeleton. Fix childhood hunger today with 98% efficiency.
Speaker 2:Exactly. You are affirming the donor's power, you're aligning with their desire for effectiveness, and you are offering them the absolute best tool for their foraging effort.
Speaker 1:You're appealing to their rational need for internal alignment, not just their fleeting emotion of pity.
Speaker 2:And this requires nonprofits to be ruthlessly disciplined about demonstrating that measurable impact too. If the donor is buying relief, the product, the impact, it needs to be high quality and clearly demonstrated.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. The success of the whole transaction rests on the non profit proving that their instrument, their expertise, their network, their systems is the best way for the donor to resolve their specific world pain. Accountability has to be centered on the donor's internal state.
Speaker 2:So to sort of wrap this all up, what our deep dive has revealed is this: the most successful non profits in this volatile, noisy world will stop acting like beggars pleading for survival.
Speaker 1:And start acting like the butcher or the coffee shop.
Speaker 2:Exactly. They must offer a clear, direct and valuable service the reduction of the donor's existential anxiety through measurable, effective and professional action.
Speaker 1:The transaction has to be framed and experienced as an equal, mutually beneficial exchange where both parties get what they need. The nonprofit gets resources.
Speaker 2:And the donor secures the much needed relief from their world pain.
Speaker 1:Okay, so if the donation is primarily an act of self regulation, this powerful purchase to fix personal world pain, we encourage you to ask a final provocative question. When you measure impact, should you also be systematically measuring the donor's relief? How does successfully resolving their prediction error change the data you collect, the stories you tell, and the reports you send back to them?
Speaker 2:That's a powerful thought to take forward.
Speaker 1:A powerful thought indeed. The future of fundraising really relies on understanding the agency of the person doing the giving.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:For more information about this and all Click and Pledge products, make sure to visit clickandpledge.com and request for a one on one training or demo. Whether you are a client or just curious about our platform, just ask us and we will gladly get together with you to chat.
Speaker 2:And don't forget to subscribe to this podcast to stay up to date with all the latest and greatest features of the Click and Pledge Fundraising Command Center. We'll see you next time for the next deep dive.