Appetite For Giving

Here’s an interesting question …

What if GLP-1 usage is depressing fundraising efforts?

According to KFF’s recent poll, more than 1 in 8 Americans are currently taking one of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medications.  More than 1 in 5 report that, at some point, they have taken some form of this class of medicine.  

GLP-1 drugs are used for weight loss in addition to treatment of various chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.   One way they work is through interaction with brain receptors, reducing dopamine and increasing emotional regulation.  To be clear, I’m not a doctor, nor do I have any sort of medical training.  I am, however, among the 1 in 8 Americans on a GLP-1 course of treatment.

From my own experience and frequent conversations with friends and associates who are also “users,” I have developed a body of anecdotal, if not evidence, then insights.  When I paired these insights with decades of fundraising experience, I came to believe the connection between increased GLP-1 usage and the decrease in fundraising is more than coincidence.

For years, I’ve heard (and have occasionally used) the phrase “selling a warm, fuzzy feeling,” to describe fundraising.  While some might see it as a pejorative description, for this conversation it is highly relevant. I don’t believe it is controversial to say that donors receive joy in the act of giving.  Whether you call it “joy” or a “warm, fuzzy feeling,” in my mind, is semantics.  In sales trainings, you’ll hear an old saying, grounded in psychology, that is also relevant to this topic:  “Decisions are made by emotion and justified by reason.” 

Experience tells me a significant percentage of gifts under $100 are, to one degree or another, impulse driven. This $100 mark is significant because it accounts for the vast majority of gifts made to non-profits.  Add to this, to an even larger extent, gifts of all sizes have an emotional connection. Of course, our case for support is important, it provides both the emotional trigger and the statistical/rational reason needed by donors. Yet, the harsh reality is, very often it is timing that makes that greatest difference in ask success, regardless of method (direct mail, digital, personal, peer-to-peer, etc.). An important factor in your timing’s success is the donor’s openness to emotional impulse at the time of the ask.

With the understanding that GLP-1 treatment impacts both impulse control and the emotional impact of decisions, it seems logical that these same effects are hurting fundraising efforts. Just as GLP-1 depresses both the urge for food and the chemical reward that comes from eating (and trust me, it does), I believe GLP-1 is depressing the impulse to give and the chemical reward (joy) from acts of generosity.

The GPL-1 impact on fundraising is and will continue to be be far-reaching. Those far smarter than me will study this concept, likely starting with the area with the greatest impact on most nonprofits’ bottom line, major giving. But for me, it would be most interesting to explore how specific sub-sections are affected, like religion (particularly in-pew collections), panhandling, event auctions, and, of course, planned giving.

Like all things in the world of fundraising, there isn’t a single cause.  I don’t believe that increased use of GLP-1 can be solely blamed for decreased charitable giving.  I do believe, however, that this new, chemically altered reality is one we have to accept and account for.  GLP-1 usage continues to increase; all numbers point to growth as new and expanded use cases are tested and approved.

So, if this isn’t just a temporary factor in the current slump, but a life-long reality (literally, “life-long,” since most users will be on a treatment course for the rest of their lives), how can we account for it?

• Increased ask frequency, trying to improve the chances of connecting with donors when they are open to emotional impulse?

• More compelling emotional triggers, using depth or intensity to overcome the depressed response?

• Improved “reason” positioning, relying on the justification aspect of decision making?

• Decreased asks paired with increased “why” messaging, hoping the combination of our position speaks to both sides of decision making?

• Better segmentation, changing the messaging for lapsing donors?

I hate to disappoint, but I don’t have the answer.  And, I don’t think anyone does…yet. Fixating on this new reality may not be helpful, but ignoring it will be devastating.  

I believe GLP-1 usage is here for good, as is its connection to decreased charitable giving.  With that, as GLP-1 usage increases, we can expect its giving impact to increase as well.