Did your email server mangle this message? Read online :)
📍What we're talking about this issue: Two brain biases that sneak up on you (and me!)... and how to fix them
Image: Shutterstock
Dear defender of good,
You know the feeling you get when a conversation goes sideways?
Well, this week’s Loyalty Letter came out of a conversation that didn’t go the way I’d hoped.
I thought I was explaining something clearly. The other person thought I was trying to push them.
That tension –
between clarity and control – shows up in fundraising writing too. And when it does, things go sideways fast...
Brain Science Misfires: 2 Copywriting Lessons on Clarity and Autonomy
✍️ By Lisa Sargent Fundraising copywriter
June 2025
Even when your fundraising message comes from a good place – and your writing feels solid –
sometimes things get lost. The reader pulls back. Or tunes out completely.
It’s not always the words themselves.
It’s what’s happening underneath: the invisible brain biases that shape how people receive your message.
One of them I’ve experienced firsthand (not in a happy way). The other I’ve seen play out again and again in fundraising copy.
Excerpted and abridged from my chapter in Change for Better, let’s look at two brain blocks – and how to write past them.
The Curse of Knowledge: A True Story
The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that isn’t your donor’s.
It’s yours. (And mine, you'll soon see.)
As fundraisers. As communicators. And especially as
fundraising writers.
And because it can have a potentially disastrous effect on your fundraising results (because decision science is also about why people choose not to give) you need to know what the curse of knowledge is... when and why it can happen... and questions that can help you avoid it.
It works like this.
You’re neck-deep in fundraising appeal backstory. Or you’ve been with
an organization a long time. You know the subject backwards. Forwards. Sideways.
That’s when the curse of knowledge creeps in on cat feet.
You start to subconsciously assume that everyone shares your depth of knowledge (and sometimes, your same perspective):
For fundraisers that means: believing your donors see things with the insider eyes that you
do.
They don’t.
Fail to make a clear connection, gloss over a piece of detail, begin to write copy that educates instead of emotes (because you think they need ALL the facts, like you had), and you’re in trouble.
Or in my case (here comes the true story part)...
You underestimate the fear a majority of your audience has for the word “heroin” because your brain and your heart are
deep into the actual story and that story of human triumph over addiction is amazing and powerful. (By heroin, I mean the opioid drug that’s left a decades-deep trail of heartbreak worldwide. That one.)
In my defense, I learned and grew from the blunder – a lifetime ago now.
But I never forgot the curse of knowledge lesson and the visual, which for all the world to see on an outer envelope, looked like this (emoji
annotations by me):
How bad can it get, results-wise? Sadly, I can tell you...
The response rate for this particular pack underperformed the two previous appeals that mailed that same time of year by five percentage points and... wait
for it... eleven percentage points.
Do not mess with the curse of knowledge, folks: it’s formidable. How to avoid it?
When you write your copy, or plan your fundraising pack, ask questions like:
Is this appropriate for our donors?
Is my copy clear?
Do I avoid specific donor-repelling language?
Will donors read this and say, ‘So what?’
Will donors read this and say, ‘Who
cares?’
Will donors read this and say, ‘OMG. You did not just say that did you?’
The curse of knowledge is always waiting for a toe in the door.
Don’t let it in.
Reactance Bias (aka Your Inner Teenager)
Just like the curse of knowledge, reactance is another cognitive bias you want to avoid activating.
Because again, a donor’s decision not to give is still
decision science.
Picture reactance as something that turns your lovely reader into a willful teenager. One with the tendency to do the exact opposite of what you ask them to do.
Because they can, that's why... and the reason for reactance is simple.
Freedom of choice, or control over our own lives and actions, is something we all want. It’s human
nature.
There are tools you can use to defuse
reactance before it implodes your fundraising results. I call them, offically 'The Defusers.'
Today we’ll look at two.
The first is the BYAF Defuser, which means you'll come right out and say something akin to “But you are free to choose."
As in this Doctors’ Day appeal copy:
👉 Pro tip: it doesn’t have to be “But you are free to choose,” verbatim. Even variations can be wildly effective. Neuromarketing Blog’s Roger Dooley cited a global meta-study encompassing 22,000 participants
where variations of what he calls BYAF (but you are free to choose) doubled the success rate.
And the second way to reduce reactance? The If You Can't Defuser, which is really just being considerate -- but also really effective:
What I mean by this is you'll actually come right out in your appeals and say, "But if you can't give right now, it's okay. We
understand."
It's important to know that “if you can’t give now” doesn’t happen at the very start of your letter.
Nor is it the centerpiece around which all other asks are built.
No.
It’s added later, as a gesture of goodwill and grace – and, in our case, to help defuse reactance by returning freedom of choice to the
reader.
Even in a fundraising acquisition pack to prospective donors, as this next example shows: it’s been a control pack for nearly a decade and has brought in 20,000+ donors in its lifetime (control packs are also called banker’s packs, meaning the winning pack against which all other test packs are measured until a new pack beats its performance).
Want another?
Here’s a single line from a direct mail fundraising appeal that was part of a multi channel campaign during the first Covid lockdowns. Over a 7-month period it yielded more than 52,000 donations.
And here's one more from a renewal campaign for an animal rights group that lets donors who aren’t able to donate at the time still request a membership card:
On the surface, letting people know they don't have to give sounds a little off the wall. But when you understand the brain science behind it, the If You Can't Defuser makes perfect sense. (And if you want a truly stellar example of what can happen when you extend
grace and goodwill to lapsed members, don't miss the Audubon Society of Rhode Island's example on SOFII. It's got a few years under its belt now, but still a treasure.)
To sum up, watching out for the curse of knowledge isn’t about dumbing things down. It’s about honoring what
your reader doesn’t know yet.
And autonomy? That’s not a threat to your message or your ask – it’s the secret sauce that makes your donor feel safe enough to keep listening.
These ideas have stayed with me since writing about them in Change for Better. Not as theory, but as
a daily reminder... and I hope they help you too.
So the next time you sit down to write, ask yourself: Am I making this easy to follow? Am I giving them room to choose?
If the answer is yes, you’ve already sidestepped two sneaky brain barriers. And you’re well on your way to a message that feels like trust.
Thanks for being a Loyalty Letter subscriber,
and thank you for reading today. Write with great heart always!
PS. While we're talking about 'but you are free to choose,' always remember... not everyone's meant to stay (and that's okay!). If the Loyalty Letter isn't for you, I totally understand. There's an unsubscribe link at the bottom of every
message. And if you stay? Hooray! Can't wait to meet you here again in two weeks. Thanks for being wonderful you! 💕
