# Rewrite One Appeal Around the Donor: Identity, Emotion, and Wellbeing

The donor becomes the subject of the sentence. Everything else follows from that edit.

## Key takeaways
- Philanthropic psychology rewrites appeals around the donor's identity, emotion, and wellbeing rather than the organization's need. Its founders report real-world uplifts above 100%, a figure that is the institute's own.
- In a two-charity longitudinal survey, donors' stated intentions did not predict whether they were still giving a year later. How giving left them feeling did (Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy).
- Identity adjectives in donor communications lifted women's average gifts by about 10% in Jen Shang's public-radio experiments.
- Three edits do most of the work: make the donor the subject of the sentences, name who the donor is on the strength of concrete prior behavior, and show what giving did for the donor as well as the beneficiary.
- Measure a rewrite like any test: response rate, average gift, and one feeling question, then watch second gifts and retention on your own file.

The highest-return edit you can make to a fundraising appeal is to change who it is about. Philanthropic psychology, the discipline built by Jen Shang and Adrian Sargeant at the [Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy](https://www.philanthropy-institute.org.uk/phil-psych), rewrites donor communications around the donor's identity, emotion, and wellbeing rather than the organization's need. The institute reports real-world income uplifts in excess of 100% from these rewrites across four years of experiments, a figure that is its own reported result. The peer-reviewed record behind the method stands on its own: identity language alone has lifted average gifts by about 10% in controlled field experiments.

## What is philanthropic psychology?

It is the study of what giving does to the giver, applied to how organizations write. Shang was the first person to earn a PhD in philanthropy and describes her field as the psychology of the donor rather than the psychology of persuasion. The method reads every donor-facing sentence through three questions. Does this speak to who the donor is, their identity? Does it honor what the donor feels, their emotion? And does it leave the donor better off for having given, their wellbeing?

The frame is stewardship rather than extraction. On the First Day Podcast in September 2026, Sargeant described fundraising as stewarding the human capacity to love. An appeal written that way still asks, and still names a number and a deadline. What changes is the subject of the sentences: the donor's care becomes the story, and the organization becomes the instrument of it.

## Why do feelings predict giving better than intentions?

Because donors report intentions they do not keep, and keep behaviors they never reported. In a longitudinal survey the institute ran across two charities, donors' stated intentions to keep giving did not predict whether they actually gave a year later. How giving left them feeling did predict it. The practical consequence is blunt: asking donors whether they plan to give again measures politeness, and measuring how the last gift made them feel measures the future.

The stakes are current. Overall donor retention sat at 43.3% in 2025 while the donor base shrank 3.6% for a fifth straight year ([Fundraising Effectiveness Project](https://publications.fepreports.org/archive/2025-q4/)). If the feeling a gift leaves behind is what brings a donor back, then appeal copy is retention work, done in advance, on the least expensive surface an organization owns.

**43.3%** — overall donor retention in 2025, the environment any appeal rewrite is working against ([Fundraising Effectiveness Project](https://publications.fepreports.org/archive/2025-q4/))

## What does a donor-centered rewrite change?

Three edits carry most of the effect. First, make the donor the grammatical subject of the sentences. "We provided 12,000 meals" becomes "You put 12,000 meals on neighbors' tables." Same fact, different actor. Second, name who the donor is, and tie the name to concrete prior behavior. Shang's public-radio experiments found that identity adjectives such as kind, generous, and caring lifted women's average gifts by about 10% ([Stanford Social Innovation Review](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fundraising_part_2_givers_psychology_seen_as_key)), and the labeling research Sargeant reviews adds that labels stick best when they rest on something the donor actually did. Third, show what giving did for the donor, not just for the beneficiary, because the feeling the gift leaves behind is the part that predicts the next one.

**~10%** — lift in women's average gifts when donor communications used identity adjectives such as kind, generous, and caring ([SSIR on Jen Shang's public-radio experiments](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fundraising_part_2_givers_psychology_seen_as_key))

Organization-centered lines and their donor-centered rewrites (illustrative copy)

| Organization-centered | Donor-centered |
| --- | --- |
| We provided 12,000 meals last year. | You put 12,000 meals on neighbors' tables last year. |
| Our programs depend on donor support. | This work exists because people like you choose it, gift by gift. |
| Please consider a gift of $50 to help us meet our goal. | Your $50 keeps a family's counseling sessions going this month. |
| Thank you for your donation. | Thank you for being the kind of person who shows up for families here. |

## The rewrite: one paragraph, before and after

Here is the whole method applied to one appeal paragraph for Meadowlark Family Services, a fictional organization. Both versions are synthetic copy, written to show the pattern rather than to be lifted verbatim.

> **Before: the organization asks**
>
> "Meadowlark Family Services needs your help. Rising costs have stretched our budget, and our counseling program is at risk. We must raise $40,000 by June 30 to keep the program running. Please give today so we can continue this important work."

> **After: the donor acts**
>
> "You have been part of Meadowlark's story before, and it shows in the families who found their footing this year. You are the kind of person who shows up for neighbors in a hard season. A gift today keeps a counselor in the room for a family that needs one, and the $40,000 we need by June 30 is within reach because people like you carry it there. However you decide, thank you for the care you have already shown."

Read the two against the three edits. The subject changed: the first version's actors are the organization and its budget, the second's are the donor and the family. The identity claim arrived tied to concrete prior behavior, being part of Meadowlark's story before, which is what keeps it from reading as flattery. And the closing line attends to the donor's feeling on the way out, whatever they decide. What did not change matters just as much: the $40,000, the June 30 deadline, and the honest statement of need are all still there. Donor-centered is not need-free, it is need reframed as the donor's power to act.

## How do you know the rewrite worked?

Treat it as a test, not a conversion. Split one appeal, send the rewrite to half the file, and read three numbers: response rate, average gift, and the answer to a single added question, "How did making this gift leave you feeling?" That last question is the one most organizations never ask, and it is the one the longitudinal evidence says predicts the future.

Set expectations from the peer-reviewed record rather than the headline. Single-change experiments in this literature move results by around 10%, the adjective effect, up to about 27%, the effect Shang, Reed, and Croson (2008) measured when public-radio callers heard that another donor of their own gender had given $240: average gifts rose from about $105 to more than $140 ([Journal of Marketing Research](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351)). Lifts in that band, compounding across appeals and years, are the honest prize.

**27%** — higher average gifts when public-radio callers heard what a same-gender donor had given, about $105 rising past $140 ([Shang, Reed & Croson, Journal of Marketing Research (2008)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351))

> **A flag on the 100% number**
>
> The Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy's report of uplifts in excess of 100% comes from its own client experiments and has not been independently audited. The controlled, peer-reviewed effects are in the 10% to 27% class. Both are worth knowing, and the second class is the honest planning number.

The downstream evidence takes longer to arrive and matters more. A rewrite that leaves donors feeling better should show up as a stronger [second-gift rate](https://donorinsights.com/articles/second-gift-window) and better retention in the cohorts who received it. Donor Insights tracks those cohorts on your own giving records, so a copy change made this quarter can be read honestly a year later, in the numbers it was always aimed at. The [methodology](https://donorinsights.com/methodology) starts from your file, not from anyone's headline claim.

## FAQ

**What is philanthropic psychology?**

A discipline developed by Jen Shang and Adrian Sargeant at the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy that rewrites donor communications around the donor's identity, emotion, and psychological wellbeing rather than the organization's need. Shang was the first person to earn a PhD in philanthropy.

**Does donor-centered copy actually raise more money?**

The peer-reviewed record says yes, in the 10% to 27% range for single changes: identity adjectives lifted average gifts about 10% in Shang's public-radio experiments, and identity-congruent social information lifted them about 27% (Shang, Reed and Croson, 2008). The institute's own client work reports uplifts above 100%, a self-reported figure.

**How do I rewrite an appeal around the donor?**

Three edits: make the donor the subject of the sentences, name who the donor is with an identity adjective tied to concrete prior behavior, and show what giving did for the donor as well as the beneficiary. Keep the honest need, the amount, and the deadline. Reframe them as the donor's power to act.

**What is donor wellbeing, and why does it matter for retention?**

How giving leaves the donor feeling about themselves and their life. In the institute's two-charity longitudinal survey, stated intentions did not predict whether donors were still giving a year later, and how giving left them feeling did. The feeling a gift leaves behind is retention work done in advance.

**What results should we expect from a rewrite?**

Plan on the peer-reviewed band, roughly 10% to 27% on the measure the change targets, not the 100%-plus headline. Test one appeal against the original, read response rate, average gift, and one feeling question, then watch second gifts and retention in the receiving cohort over the following year.

## Sources
- [Stanford Social Innovation Review, on Jen Shang's donor-psychology experiments](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fundraising_part_2_givers_psychology_seen_as_key)
- [Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy, Philanthropic Psychology (method and reported uplifts)](https://www.philanthropy-institute.org.uk/phil-psych)
- [Shang, Reed & Croson, Journal of Marketing Research (2008), identity-congruent social information](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351)
- [Fundraising Effectiveness Project, Q4 2025 report (2025 data)](https://publications.fepreports.org/archive/2025-q4/)

## Disclaimer

**Educational purpose.** This article is published for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment, financial, funding, donor, tax, legal, accounting, or fundraising advice, and reading it creates no advisory, fiduciary, or client relationship. Consult your own qualified professionals before making decisions.

**Not an offer.** Nothing here is an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy, sell, donate to, or fund any organization or security. Pray, Inc. DonorInsights.com is not a registered investment adviser, broker-dealer, law firm, accounting firm, or fundraising counsel, and publishes only impersonal commentary of general and regular circulation.

**Public data, no guarantee.** Analyses of named organizations rely on public sources such as IRS Form 990 filings, an organization's own published materials, and reputable press. These sources are believed reliable but are not audited or independently verified by us. The content may contain errors or omissions and is provided "as is" with no warranties of accuracy, completeness, or currency.

**Opinions and estimates.** Donor-level and financial figures for named organizations are our inferences and opinions, including forward-looking projections that are not guarantees of future results.

**No affiliation.** Named organizations are independent and are not clients, affiliates, sponsors, or endorsers of DonorInsights.com. Third-party names and trademarks belong to their owners and are used only for identification and commentary. Links to third-party sites are not endorsements.

**No reliance.** We accept no liability for any action taken based on this content.

**Corrections.** This analysis reflects public sources available as of publication. If you are an organization discussed here, or any reader, and you believe a figure or statement is inaccurate, email hello@donorinsights.com and we will review it and correct any error promptly.

Your use of this site is governed by our [Terms of Use](https://donorinsights.com/terms).

Source: DonorInsights.com — https://donorinsights.com/articles/donor-wellbeing-rewrite