Just last week I had one prospect say to me, “I don’t need any eye candy – just give me the facts.” And another who said, “I want to go see the program, I don’t need your information packet.”

The posts here have been addressing right/left brains. My experience tells me that MOST are engaged when we tug on both sides. But there is a third “turn on” and that’s P&I -the power and influence factor. I think this shows up most in political contributions but don’t count it out in other fields.

For me philanthropy should be driven by the heart…the desire to invest in and to see something different and better in the world where we have failed as communities and human beings to take care of each other, the environment, etc…

Also, for me, organizations and practitioners doing the work should do it from the heart and from a strong commitment and passion to actually do whatever it takes to make change possible in the world and for those we serve.

Therefore, if the desire to give and to do is driven by the heart and by truly wanting the changes we seek…the rigor of ensuring that we make logical and thoughtful decisions, have strategy , theory and intention driving our work, and make sure we are having impact by measuring our effectiveness is not at all about head decisions.

It is the truest form of giving and doing from the heart. It is about honoring and respecting those we serve enough to actually make a difference or get better as organizations and funders so that we can.

We are human beings, and as such are moved by a holistic representation of the human experience. That is why we respond to art, music books – and why we respond to a story like Rokia’s. Her story moves us along the spectrum of human emotion. But, emotion is fickle, and quickly looks for other Rokia’s to feed its need. This is why the balancing force of logic, stats and data is so critical to building long-term relationships with emotionally-grounded funders.

Thanks, Sean. Interesting post.

With that being said, I agree that there has to be a healthy balance when giving. You obviously want to give to people that are truly making a difference. I also hope Isaac’s theory proves to be sure. It makes sense.

1) Although I agree that the findings are fascinating, I do think caution should be taken generalizing their findings to the larger philanthropic community. The study focused on small amounts ($5).

2) My own theory is that emotional (identifiable) pleas for donations are very effective when asking for small amounts (somewhere under $1,000) – but that when pleas for larger amounts are made, some combination of emotional (identifiable) and statistical information are more effective. More money means people get more involved, and tend to want more information, so the emotional appeals have less overall effect. Again, this is my theory – still looking for some research to back this up.

3) I think this does point to the need for all nonprofits to think about audience for their asks. Something my communication background has taught me is that there is no one ‘magic’ way to deliver a message. The audience plays a large role – so nonprofits should have multiple ways to ask for funding. And philanthropists shoudl be aware that these asks can be spun in many different ways.

Thanks for linking to the original study Sean – GREAT piece of research that I think everyone should read.

Also, I don’t think its a one or the other proposition. I think you can give with your head and feel good about it. In fact, I think you can feel better your giving if it is done intelligently.

I want to believe that your suggestion is right. But it seems that there is a paradox at work here.

Anyway, I applaud you focusing on this theme and highlighting its importance in relation to philanthropy. I’ m also glad to have discovered your blog!

Premal, just wanted to say how impressed I’ve been with the way Kiva has been updating the website so quickly in response to the recent transparency debates.

“But if there is a way through this paradox, a way to encourage high levels of rationally informed giving, the path will be one that embraces both left-brain and right-brain functions.”

With Kiva, my hope is that we can strive to create an incredibly data rich experience on a variety of lending opportunities while generating sufficient momentum to fight off disengagement / inaction.

Thanks for highlighting the study and the thoughtful post.

What I’d say is that almost ALL giving decisions are emotional ones, and I’m excited to see you bringing up this question. In fact the most common mistake I see is leading with the left-brain and thinking that people will make “rational” philanthropic decisions. (I put “rational” in quotes because I don’t mean that the opposite of “rational” is “irrational.” It might be “personal” or “gut” or “instinctive”.)

I’m very interested in seeing the integration of left- and right-brain thinking and analysis in the discussion of philanthropy and philanthropist, so thanks for this post, and more soon.