Shortfall Story

Shortall story.

My last post was about why sharing a shortfall with your donors is good for revenue and your relationships with donors.

That’s a challenging, counter-intuitive idea.  So because we humans learn through stories, let me share the story of how one nonprofit navigated their shortfall situation.

Here’s how it went…

Opening Up to a New Idea

Years ago, a nonprofit we were serving let us know that they had a $500,000 shortfall as they approached the end of their fiscal year. 

We recommended that they share the shortfall with their donors by running a shortfall campaign. 

The conversation that followed went through the standard steps that most of these conversations go through…

First, they told us that sharing their shortfall was a ridiculous idea.  They shared that their organization is a pillar in their community.  They were worried that making the shortfall public would negatively affect their brand.  They were worried that donors would think the organization was a bad steward of their gifts.  They were worried that – even if some donors gave a gift to help – that overall it would cause more donors to stop giving to the organization.

We listened.  And then we shared that we knew from experience, having run 60 to 70 successful shortfall campaigns, that their donors would give generously if the organization included the shortfall in their messaging.  And we shared that, in our experience, the organization would not suffer any of the negative consequences that they feared. 

Feeling slightly warmer to the idea but still unconvinced, they said what most organizations say at this point, which is, “Well, there’s no way that will work with our donors because [REASONS].”  The reasons tend to be things like, “Our donors are different than other donors” or “this won’t work because all our donors know our founder” or “our donors are professionals and won’t fall for this” (as if there’s something to fall for?!?) and, my personal favorite, “all our donors are from [location] and people from [location] don’t like things like this.”

So we said, “We hear you and acknowledge that these are real concerns.  Could we share an example of a shortfall campaign from an organization similar to yours?  It worked well for them and we think it would work well for you.” 

They replied, “Yes we’d love to see the example… but we have to tell you that our boss isn’t going to like it.” 

So, I had a warm conversation with the Director of Donor Development.  She was open to the idea, found our experience persuading, and decided it was worth talking about. 

This leads to the final step, which is moving up the chain of command to have a conversation with the VP or ED/CEO who can make the final decision.  In this case, I spent an hour on the phone with the VP of Philanthropy.  She’s a brilliant woman and had all the concerns mentioned earlier – in part because she was very good at fundraising and had never experienced a shortfall before.

I talked her through several shortfall campaigns I’d been through.  I shared all the positive reasons that donors respond to shortfalls.  I shared results of previous shortfall campaigns compared to standard results. 

It was basically an hour-long counselling session.  People in Fundraising tend to have deeply held beliefs about what their donors will and will not respond to.  And I was warmly sharing some data that challenged this person’s beliefs.  There were hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, and relationships with very large donors, so we talked it all the way through. 

The VP of Philanthropy bought in, and then met with the Board to get approval.  After much discussion, the Board nervously decided to try it. 

The Campaign

It was time to get to work.  Here’s what we did:

  • We planned out a 6-week campaign that ended when their fiscal year ended.
  • The campaign had two direct mail letters, 8 emails, and phone calls to major donors.
  • I wrote up talking points about the shortfall.  These included how the shortfall happened, what the consequences would be if it wasn’t erased, and what the organization was doing about it.
  • The talking points were distributed to the Board, to Major Gifts Officers who were calling major donors, and to the people answering the phones. 
  • I wrote the direct mail appeal letter that kicked off the campaign.  We used the thinking and messaging in the letter to craft the follow-up letter, the emails, website copy, and giving page copy.
  • The messaging was clear and to the point: through no fault of their own, the organization was facing a $500,000 shortfall.  We shared what would happen if they couldn’t erase the shortfall.  We shared the good work the donor’s gift would help make possible.  Then we asked the donor to send in a special gift to help erase the shortfall.

The people were prepped.  The letters were mailed.  The emails were sent.  It was time to see what happened…

The Results

Their fiscal year-end campaign normally raised about $150,000, and our campaign raised about $650,000.  That’s an “extra” $500,000 that effectively erased the shortfall.

It doesn’t always work out that perfectly, but it does more often than you’d expect.  The major donors who get involved often want to know how much is needed to reach the goal.  They will often stretch their giving to help you reach the target number.

In addition to the overall success, there are few numbers I’d like to highlight:

  • The response rates to the direct mail and emails were notably higher than average.
  • Their average gift sizes were higher than normal.
  • The organization had about 100,000 donors at the time, and they had a total of five donors reach out to them to ask about the shortfall.  Five!
    • Two of the five people who reached out were Board members who had already been briefed on the shortfall.  (Yes, that is as ridiculous as it sounds.)
    • In the five conversations, after hearing more details about what was going on, two of the five people gave a gift on the spot.

In addition, none of the feared negative consequences came to pass.  This shortfall was a few years ago, and the organization now has about 25% more donors than they used to.  Their major gifts program is going great.  They’ve also successfully funded a significant capital campaign.

Their brand was not tarnished.  Their standing the community remains strong.  Their donors did not leave in a thundering herd.

The Lesson

This whole thing is a lesson in the power of vulnerability.

The organization was vulnerable and courageous enough to share the shortfall with their donors.  Their donors responded generously, and were pleased to help the organization in their time of need.  There were no negative consequences to speak of. 

The organization has a deeper appreciation of their donors than ever before; the organization needed help, and their donors answered the call.

All of this is to say, if you have a shortfall don’t be afraid to share it with your donors.

Share Your Shortfall

Share shortfall.

Here’s a “hot take” for you:

If your organization has a shortfall, I encourage you to share it with your donors.  Sharing it will be good for your fundraising and donor relationships, both in the short term and the long term.

I know that sounds absurd to many people.  But this is a data-driven position.

Sharing a shortfall with your donors is a scary idea for many nonprofits.  Doing it usually requires a big shift in thinking.  So this is a longer post than normal.  I’m going to explain what we’ve noticed about three things:

  1. Why sharing a shortfall seems like an obvious bad idea
  2. The results when nonprofits run shortfall campaigns
  3. Why we think shortfall campaigns work so well

We want you to get past the fear because of what’s on the other side…

“There’s no way this is a good idea”

Let’s start by talking for a moment about why sharing a shortfall feels somewhere between dangerous and dumb.  Here’s what “common sense” tells you about sharing a shortfall with your donors:

  • It would reflect poorly on your organization and your brand.
  • It will look like you’re bad at managing money.
  • People won’t give.  (After all, if they think you are bad at managing money, why would they give you another gift?!?)
  • Even if sharing a shortfall somehow brought in a bunch of money, there will be negative consequences in the future that will far overshadow any revenue that comes in now.

Furthermore, no one likes how it feels to send out a shortfall message.  Everyone working at the nonprofit, or leading the nonprofit, or on the Board will feel like the shortfall reflects poorly on them.

All of this makes sense.

And let’s add one more layer: no one ever talks about the results of their shortfall campaign.  Have you ever been to a conference where a fundraising professional was up on stage talking about how well their shortfall campaign went?  Nope.

There’s so much shame around this that no one talks about it.

Then we add the branding and marketing folks who don’t really understand how vulnerability is such a big part of fundraising success, and they actively push back on mentioning that the organization has a shortfall.

So we’re in a situation where people think shortfall campaigns are a bad idea, no one likes them, and no one talks about the results.

But in my experience, the vast majority of people have never seen the results of a shortfall campaign.  They just aren’t aware that…

Shortfall Campaigns Work Great & Don’t Have Negative Consequences 

This idea is so counter-intuitive that, until you have experience with multiple shortfall campaigns, there’s almost no way you’ll believe it.

But it’s true; fundraising campaigns that focus on helping an organization overcome a shortfall work great.  And they do not cause the negative consequences that people fear.

I estimate that I’ve helped on between 60 to 70 shortfall campaigns.  They’ve been for organizations of all different sizes and in all different sectors.  Here’s what happens:

  • Donors respond in droves.  The letter / email / campaign is usually the second-highest fundraising campaign of the year, behind only the year-end campaign.  Often it’s the best campaign of the year, or the best campaign the organization has ever run.
    • The response rates are higher than average, the size of gifts are higher than average.
  • The feared negative consequences do not happen, either in the short term or long term.  I’ve measured; they don’t happen.
    • I can’t emphasize this enough: in 30+ years of fundraising and measuring results, I have never seen a reduction in long-term giving or retention rates as a result of letting donors know you have a shortfall.  All of the things we fear – donors leaving in a thundering herd, donors complaining to the Chamber of Commerce, donors telling all their friends not to give – just don’t happen.
  • There will be five or fewer conversations with concerned donors or Board members.  And when the situation is explained to them, about half of them will give you a gift on the spot and be happy they did.

Notice I’m not saying, “shortfall campaigns always raise enough to erase the shortfall.”  I’m saying that they always raise quite a bit more than an organization’s “standard” fundraising, and don’t have the negative consequences that people fear.  And the campaign will erase the entire shortfall more often than you think.

Those are the numbers.  Water is wet, the world is round, shortfall campaigns work great.

“I still don’t believe you… but if I did, how is this possible?”

I’ve thought about this a lot.  Here’s my take on the powerful mix of reasons shortfall campaigns raise so much more money than an organization’s “regular” fundraising.  And I suspect that, even though you might not totally believe my main thesis yet, you’ll look at this list and see how it makes sense:

  • Your donors care about your organization, and about your beneficiaries or cause. 
  • Donors do not want your organization to be forced to reduce services.  And they know that’s what can happen when there’s a shortfall – you’ll have to cut programs or staff.
  • Donors quickly understand the problem you’re having – all of us have had a “shortfall” of our own at some point in our lives.
  • Humans respond to clear needs.  Witness the recent giving to help the victims of Helene and Milton.  And a shortfall is a clear need.
  • Your donors know you’re a nonprofit.  They know you don’t have all the money, and they know that funding can be hard to come by sometimes.
  • Oftentimes, when an organization shares a shortfall, it’s the first time they’ve Asked their donors in a way that makes it very clear that help is needed now.  The contrast between the urgent ask and the regular fundraising (“Things are going great, we’ve helped so many people, it would be lovely if you considered partnering with us”) makes donors see and feel that their help is needed now.
  • Humans love to help, and helping feels good.

All of those ring true, right?

Put all of them together and you can begin to see why donors respond so generously when an organization shares that they have a shortfall. 

Should you go looking for a shortfall?  No.  Should you share a shortfall four times a year?  No again.

But when you have a shortfall, trust that your donors care, and share it with them.  You’ll be so glad you did.  Your donors will be glad you did, too, because they love helping you.

In my next post, I’ll share a story of an organization that had a shortfall, had all of the perfectly normal concerns about sharing that shortfall with their donors, and decided to run a shortfall campaign.

Your Uniqueness is the Eighth Most Important Thing

Unique penguin.

A lot of smaller nonprofits believe that sharing their uniqueness will cause them to have fundraising success.

But in my experience, when an organization talks about their uniqueness in their fundraising to individual donors, it causes them to raise less.  (In fact, when we start working with organizations that have been making a big deal of their uniqueness, we stop mentioning it and they start raising more money.)

Here’s the deal: there’s nothing wrong with uniqueness, and it’s an important idea in a couple of contexts; but in your letters and emails to individual donors it’s something like the 8th most important idea.

Here’s an off-the-cuff list of things that are more important to get right in your fundraising to individual donors than mentioning your organization’s uniqueness:

  1. Earning and keeping the donor’s attention
  2. Sharing the situation the beneficiaries or cause are in today
  3. Sharing the size of a gift a donor needs to give to make a meaningful difference
  4. Sharing what the donor’s gift will do to help
  5. Sharing how the donor’s past gift made a difference
  6. Making the letter/email effective for both Readers and Scanners
  7. Making it clear that the donor’s gift is needed

If you’ve done all seven of those things well, and adding a mention of your uniqueness doesn’t diminish any of those seven, then by all means talk about it. 

The lesson we’ve learned looking at fundraising results over the years is that uniqueness matters most to insiders and experts.  For instance, your unique approach is often a very important point to include in a grant application.

But when you’re talking to your individual donors – the vast majority of whom aren’t insiders or experts – the results make it clear that there are other, more important messages to communicate first.

Is Your Email List Trained to Give or to Receive?

Donate.

Follow me on this one…

  1. Once people are on your email list, you want them to give you a gift. 
  2. If they don’t give you a gift, you want them off your list.
  3. Because the best way to get people on your email list to become donors is to regularly send e-appeals, you should send e-appeals regularly.

The purpose of your email list is a step towards making a donation.  Your email list is place for people who are interested to find out a bit more about your organization and then to decide whether to become a donor or not.

So be sure you’re asking them regularly – I’d recommend at least one e-appeal per month asking them to help your beneficiaries or cause.

This will cause the occasional unsubscribe.  It will also cause far more people to “take the next step” and make a donation. 

For instance, you could send out an e-appeal and get 5 new donors and 1 unsubscribe.  That’s preferrable to sending another e-news and getting… nothing.

If you don’t regularly ask your email list to give, your email list will be larger but it will not produce much revenue or many new donors. 

You will have trained your email list to receive things from your nonprofit, but not to give to your nonprofit.

Our recommendation: conversations about your email list should center on “Revenue” and “# New Donors”… not size.

Your Printed Newsletter: The final Big Idea that brings it all together

newsletter

Your printed newsletter should be raising a lot of money – as much as your appeals and, in some cases, even more.

The goal of this series has been to give you a tested, proven approach to creating a donor-delighting, money-raising printed newsletter:

  • Direct mail experts ran a series of head-to-head tests of different types of printed newsletters. The approach detailed here beat all the other approaches.
  • We’ve used this approach since 2004 to reliably (and sometimes incredibly) increase the money nonprofits raise from their newsletters.
  • We’ve taught this model at conferences, seminars and webinars.  We’ve received hundreds of pieces of feedback about how the approach increased newsletter revenue.  You do not need to be an expert to follow this model and raise more money

So take it this approach and apply it to your organization.  Test it against your current approach, or any other approach.

Be Intentional with Your Newsletter

Figure out what your organization’s approach is.  Discover and name your organization’s underlying assumptions. 

  • Maybe your organization believes that printed newsletters are obsolete.  (They aren’t.)
  • Maybe your organization believes that printed newsletters shouldn’t or can’t raise money.  (Neither is true.) 
  • Maybe your organization believes the way you’ve always done your newsletter is the only way your organization can do a newsletter.  (Not true.)
  • Maybe your organization fears that if you change your newsletter in any way, your donors will leave.  (Also not true.)
  • Maybe your organization believes you could do a newsletter like the one taught here, but you could never do an Ask along with it, because it would offend donors.  (You guessed it, not true!)

I’ve run into all of these beliefs before.  And it doesn’t matter what you believe – what matters is that you identify what you believe that results in your current approach.  Then you compare it with the approach outlined in this series and decide which approach to take.

Great newsletters don’t raise money by accident.  Content is included for a purpose, and content is excluded for a purpose.

And remember: the primary reason donors read your newsletter is not to hear about your organization. They’re reading because they’re hoping to hear about themselves.  Specifically, donors are reading to find out if they and their gift made a difference.

So start with this proven approach that shows and tells donors how they made a difference.  And good luck!

This post was originally published on August 11, 2020 in a series of 10 posts on Donor-Delighting Newsletters. This series has been published as an e-book that can be downloaded here.

The Six Types of Asks

Six types.

There are 6 main types of “asks” that I see in fundraising.  Let me tell you what they are, then make a couple of observations. 

As I go through these, look for the type that your organization tends to use…

More General Asks

The ask is Organizational

The donor is asked to support the organization.

  • “Will you please support our work?”
  • “Please join us as we…”
  • “Will you partner with us?”

The ask is Conceptual

The donor is asked to do or provide something that’s a concept.

  • “Will you please provide hope to a person”
  • “You’ll help provide refuge…”
  • “Will you walk alongside someone as they…”

The ask is About a Topic

The donor is asked to support one area or part of the organization’s work, but it’s still conceptual.

  • “Your gift today will provide education!”
  • “Will you help provide habitat restoration for wild birds?”
  • “For Moms experiencing homelessness, will you provide housing?”

More Concrete Asks

The ask is Specific

The donor is asked to do something more specific.

  • “Will you provide a year of school?”
  • “You can provide 1 square meter of sanctuary for wild birds.”
  • “Your gift will provide a night of housing for a Mom experiencing homelessness.”

Note: if you’re wondering how to highlight a specific part of your organization’s work while still raising undesignated funds, download our free whitepaper here.

The ask is Specific with a Price

The donor is asked to fund something specific, and given the price to fund it.

  • “You can provide a year of school for $78!”
  • “1 square meter of sanctuary for wild birds costs just $150.”
  • “Your gift of $48 will provide a night of housing for a Mom experiencing homelessness.”

The ask is Specific with a Price, and is Timely

The donor is asked to fund something specific, with a price point, and what they’re being asked to fund is needed/about to be needed.

  • “Your gift before August 26th will provide a year of school for $78!”
  • Before the migratory birds arrive next month, will you please give $150 to provide 1 square meter of sanctuary for wild birds?”
  • “Your gift of $48 will provide a night of housing for a Mom experiencing homelessness.  No one should have to sleep in a car during this heatwave.”

As I thought about the different types of Asks, I noticed something that I hope will be helpful to you: there are times and places for both “more general” asks and for “more concrete” asks.   

Here’s what I’ve observed:

  • “More general” asks tend to be successful with people who have a lot of context about your organization and what you do.
    • These people already know the importance of your work, and they already know some of the specifics. Think “major donors that you’re in relationship with,” grant-making organizations, and at events when you have time to give people the whole picture.
  • More specific asks tend to be successful to people who do not have a lot of context about your organization and what you do.
    • Asks that are more specific tend to work better in direct response fundraising: email, the mail, on TV, etc. In those mediums, most of the audience does not have much context about your organization and what you do. They simply don’t know. So being specific and concrete is really helpful for them.

    The lesson, as always, is to know the audience for any given piece of fundraising, and meet that audience where they are.

    The Power of ‘A Little Bit More’ Fundraising

    A little bit more.

    As a fundraiser, it’s tempting to dream about something big and amazing that would change everything for your organization. A surprise million dollar gift. An unexpected bequest. A knockout appeal that shatters previous records.

    And, I’ll admit, you can do a lot of good when those big and amazing things happen.

    But there’s a simple tactic that nearly every fundraiser can employ that, over time, can be just as powerful. I call it “a little bit more” fundraising.

    Here’s the idea:

    Whatever you did last year, do a little bit more.

    For example, you could do one or more of the following:

    • Add one or two additional e-appeals to your communications schedule.
    • Add one more direct mail appeal to your calendar.
    • Ask your major donors to give a little bit more than their previous gift.
    • Ask a few faithful donors to start giving monthly.

    If you do a little bit more each year, you’re doing two important things:

    First, you’re giving your donors more opportunities to support your mission.

    Then, by using one or more of these tactics, you’re being proactive and taking control of your fundraising, rather than putting your hopes in a big, surprise gift or a knockout appeal.

    This summer, give some thought to what adding “a little bit more” to your fundraising would look like for your organization. When you work “a little bit more” fundraising into your plan, you’ll see a lift in results without a lot of additional work.

    How to Succeed as a Designer at a Nonprofit

    Graphic designer.

    Someone recently asked me what advice I’d give to Designers working at and for nonprofits. 

    I gave some “big picture” advice – which I’m told was helpful – so I’m sharing it here with you…

    Know that different design contexts have different design requirements

    One of the things that happens at nonprofits is that they come up with a design approach and they apply that approach regardless of context

    For instance, say one of the colors in your logo/brand is a beautiful light green.  In an Annual Report, you can use that green as the color for a headline or a small block of text to make the page more visually interesting.  But in direct mail you should never use a light color for text because it’s so hard to read for older donors, and in direct response fundraising readability is directly correlated with fundraising results

    As a Designer, you’ll be more helpful to your organization (and your beneficiaries or cause) if your design is effective for each particular context than if your design is perfectly consistent across all the contexts you have to design for.  

    You keep your organization’s design accessible for your donors

    The person who wants you to fit a 550-word letter on one page does not know that the resulting “wall of text” won’t be read by anyone but their Mom.  The young person who wants the reply card form to be super-tiny does not know that a 75-year-old donor with a touch of arthritis will never be able to write their credit card number in a space that small. 

    It is the Designer’s job to think about these things on behalf of your donors to make it easier for them to understand and support your organization.

    And if you keep your organization’s work more accessible, your organization will raise more money.

    Be a partner to the writer

    The best design in the world cannot compensate for lousy copy.  So if the letter you’re asked to design doesn’t have a good offer, or takes too long to get to the point, or sounds like a Ph.D. dissertation, say something

    Speaking as a copywriter, I’ve had hundreds of ideas that sounded great in my head but just didn’t work on the page.  The most helpful Designers told me so, and helped me see why.

    Note to anyone working with a Designer: if you don’t treat the Designer as a partner, and give their feedback real consideration, you won’t get to work with that Designer for long.

    Design for donors, not yourself

    The most effective Designers always keep in mind that the primary audience for their design work has different preferences and needs than the Designer does.

    This is hard to do. 

    For instance, most Designers at nonprofits are at least 20 years younger than the core audience for their work: the average age of a donor in the U.S. is their late 60’s, and I’d guess that most Designers at nonprofits are younger than 40. 

    For a Designer, this means that your donors are more likely to emotionally resonate with a different design approach than you are.  Real life example: most donors at most organizations are more likely to respond to a letter that looks like a telegram than they are to a letter that looks like the cool titles on a hot new Netflix show.

    Design for your audience.

    Be your own advocate & Ask questions

    OK, this is two pieces of advice, but they are related.

    The tough thing about working in the nonprofit world, especially at smaller nonprofits, is that there’s little training for Designers.  So in most cases, you are responsible for your own growth.

    The best thing you can do to help your mission and your career is to learn about the nuts and bolts of fundraising.  You will have to ask for time and budget to buy books, to take classes, to go to a conference. 

    And you can ask questions that your organization likely hasn’t asked before, like “what kind of design will resonate best with our donors?” and “How should our look and copy vary from context to context?”

    Ask an experienced nonprofit Designer or Creative Director to be a mentor, whether it’s just for one coffee or it’s monthly for years.  This profession is full of generous people.  Sitting here writing this, I can think of nine people who helped me over the years, and I don’t ever remember being turned down.

    If you advocate for yourself, and you’re curious, you’ll cause your organization to raise more money.  Designers who do this are worth their weight in gold. 

    What’s your job?

    I’ll end with a picture from the cover of my favorite book on design, Type & Layout

    The designers who are communicating are gifts to their organization and beneficiaries, and will always have their plates full of interesting work.

    Ask Culture vs Guess Culture

    Ask culture and guess culture.

    Sometimes an idea or perspective from outside the world of Fundraising can help you see the work of Fundraising more clearly. 

    That’s what happened when I heard about “Ask Culture vs Guess Culture.”

    Here’s a quote from when this idea first appeared online

    In some families, you grow up with the expectation that it’s OK to ask for anything at all, but you gotta realize you might get no for an answer. This is Ask Culture.



    In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you’re pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won’t even have to make the request directly; you’ll get an offer.

    When an organization is operating in Guess Culture, here are three of the behaviors you see:

    • Over-stewarding of donors
    • Never asking, or Asks that aren’t direct or clear
      • Perfect example: I did a “creative review” for an organization where I looked at twelve pieces of their fundraising.  In all those pieces they never actually asked the donor to give a gift. 
    • Under-communicating out of a fear of “donor fatigue”

    You’re also seeing Guess Culture at work any time you hear a Major Gifts Officer say something like, “If you do a great job of stewarding a donor, you won’t even have to ask.”

    Guess Culture and Fundraising

    I think the unique demands of nonprofit fundraising cause people and organizations to operate in Guess Culture more than they normally would. 

    Asking for money is a vulnerable experience, and it’s hard to be vulnerable.  Many times, for many reasons, it’s emotionally easier to shower donors with stewardship and give them the occasional “opportunity” to give… instead of boldly preparing a specific offer and asking the donor to make a gift.

    And of course the Guess Culture approach works sometimes.  Because donors are generous, any approach will work sometimes.

    But looking at the performance of the nonprofits we’ve worked with over the years, an Ask Culture approach to major gifts fundraising (and to direct response fundraising) works better.  It results in raising more money and keeping more donors year-over-year.

    Ask Culture major gifts fundraising looks like:

    • When setting up a conversation or meeting, telling the donor in advance whether you’re going to ask for money or not
    • Being willing to ask major donors for more than one gift a year
    • Asking for a specific amount
    • Asking directly with phrases like, “…so I’m asking if you’ll give a gift of $10,000”
    • After the ask is made, being silent and letting the donor speak next

    Of course there will be a few “no”s.  Of course there will occasionally be an uncomfortable silence.

    But you’ll get a lot more “yes”es and you’ll raise more money for your cause.