Socratic fundraising asks questions. It’s easy to think of this as face-to-face, one-on-one conversations. But sometimes that isn’t feasible. The right personnel aren’t available. Or their time is too expensive for the gift size. Or donors don’t want to meet. Or there are too many donors to meet. Or they’re too far away.

Socratic fundraising can still work. It’s still possible to ask questions. Questions can arise in

Universal steps

In all these formats, the steps are similar. The universal steps for a compelling donor experience are

A box and arrow diagram where "Original identity" links to "Challenge" links to "Victory" links to "Enhanced Identity"

Socratic fundraising guides the donor through these steps.432 First, the fundraiser must have a valid reason to ask questions. This then permits questions that

Justify asking questions

Questions can work. But questions won’t work if people won’t answer. The donor must

So, we need to justify asking the questions. Reasons can include,

Legitimate reasons

If you don’t care what donors think, don’t ask. It’s important to have a legitimate reason to ask.433 It’s also important that reasons appear legitimate. So, beware of adding a donation request to a survey.434 This can appear as,

“We need your advice … Oh, but now that you’re giving advice, we actually want your money.”

Donors can feel,

“You didn’t care what I thought. You just wanted fast cash.”

Also, never ask a question with a forced answer. For example, don’t ask

“Should we continue our award-winning work that is transforming the lives of so many in desperate need?”

This might sound great to charity insiders. But it de-legitimizes the questions. Donors can feel,

“You didn’t care what I thought. You just wanted to brag.”

Effective questions must be – and appear – legitimate.

Connect with original identity

Questions can connect the donor’s identity with the cause, the charity, or the project. This can start even before the first question. The reason for asking the questions can be because of the donor’s identity.435 For example,

“Your insight is especially important because we need input from …”

The questions themselves then further connect with the donor’s identity. This means connecting with the donor’s

What does this look like? What are some actual questions? It depends on the cause. Let’s look at some examples for an environmental charity.

Values identity questions: Examples

Here is an example of questions asking about donors’ values.

Please rate the importance to you of the following:

[Values options (row headings)]

Being a good example for the next generation.

Making a lasting impact in the world.

Ensuring that your values will be remembered by future generations.

[Response options (column headings)]

__ Highly important

__ Somewhat important

__ Slightly important

__ Not important

Values identity questions: Comments

Environmental causes improve the future of the planet. These questions ask about related values. They elicit connections with these values.

Do such reminders work? One experiment tested this. Some people wrote a short essay. Others didn’t. The essay was on what they wanted to be remembered for by future generations.436 Writing about this increased donations to an environmental charity by 45%.437

Of course, other causes may focus on other values. In experiments, reminders of values such as love438 or religious beliefs439 also increase donations. Use the values relevant for your cause.

Sometimes, these values responses can be surprising. One charity focused on women’s reproductive rights in the developing world. Leaders assumed the key value was women’s rights. Survey results revealed something else. Many donors cared only about population control.

Life story identity questions: Examples

Here is an example of questions asking about donors’ life story connections.

At what age did you first begin to think about the importance of conserving the natural environment?

__ In childhood

__ In high school

__ In my 20s

__ In my 30s or later

Comments:

Which of the following have been important in your life? (Check any that apply.)

__ Time I have spent outdoors

__ Time I have spent on a river

__ Time I have spent in a forest

__ Time I have spent on a lake

__ My life experiences with wildlife

__ My life experiences with wild birds

__ My life experiences with trees and plants

Comments:

When did you first learn about [this charity]?440

__ Within the last year

__ Within the last five years

__ Within the last ten years

__ More than ten years ago

Life story identity questions: Comments

These questions ask about the donor’s life story. They connect it with the cause or the charity. This encourages support. One experiment used the first two sets of questions.441 These questions worked. They increased donation likelihood for an environmental charity.

These life story questions worked for current gifts. But they were the most effective for bequest gifts.442 Other research matches this. Donors report that life story connections are key for charitable bequests.443 Neuroimaging shows such decisions engage “visualized autobiography” brain regions.444 As this visualization increases, so does interest in a bequest. One study tested phrases to describe a charitable bequest gift.445 The best added, “to support causes that have been important in your life.” Life story references are powerful for bequest gifts.

These questions can help in other ways. They’re a great starting point for conversations. (“Tell me more …”) They can also reveal key messages. For example, donations were most likely for those noting “life experiences with wild birds.” They were least likely for those referencing time “spent on a lake.” Such details might inform project or image choices for fundraising messages.

People identity questions: Examples

Here is an example of questions asking about donors’ people connections.

Do you have more or less than two family members who consider conserving the natural environment to be important?

__ About 2

__ More than 2

__ Less than 2

Were there any family members in your life who were particularly influential in shaping your views on the importance of nature conservation? (Check any that apply.)

__ Grandmother __Grandfather __ Aunt __Uncle __Mother __Father __Sibling __Other family member

Comments:

We love to recognize our outstanding team members at [this charity]! Please share any memorable experiences you’ve had with anyone you’ve met at [this charity]. Comments:

People identity questions: Comments

The first two questions ask about family member connections. This can help link the donor’s identity with the cause. This also sets up a later question. It asks about a gift in a will honoring a family member.

The third question recalls experiences with people at the charity. For different charities, these will be different people. At universities, these might be professors. At hospitals, these might be doctors or nurses. Answers to “people” questions also make great conversation starters. (“Tell me more …”)

The questions often omit strong negative answers. This is intentional. The goal is to connect donors to the cause. If some connection is absent, we don’t want them to focus on that. We don’t want them to commit to a strong negative answer.

One approach is to group everything negative into a moderate response. Thus, the most negative answer might be “probably not” or “unlikely.” This leaves out “definitely not” or “never.” In the first question, the lowest group is “less than 2.” This omits the “none” response.

A prior question used a similar grouping strategy. It asked, “When did you first learn about [this charity]?” Answer options included within the last year, five years, and ten years. Notice, these aren’t exclusive categories. A date within the last year is also within the last ten years. Uncertainty nudges towards the safer answer. The safer answer reports a longer connection range. This can make the relationship time feel longer. It strengthens the identity connection.

Victory questions: Examples

Here is an example of questions asking donors to define their victory.

On a scale from 0 = Absolutely no importance to 100 = Absolutely the greatest importance, please rate the importance of the work of [this charity] in the following areas

___ Environmental conservation

___ Preserve wetlands for wild ducks and other migrating birds

___ Protect and restore ancient sequoia and redwood forests in the U.S.

___ Protect sensitive coral reefs around the globe

Victory questions: Comments

The next step is to help the donor define a personally meaningful victory. One way to do this is with a “victory menu.” The menu lists different projects or impact areas. Donors rate the importance of each. This reveals which is most meaningful to the donor. It helps the donor define his ideal victory. This encourages giving.

One experiment tested this for ten charities from five causes.446 Each cause included a charity with three projects. The average likelihood of giving for each charity was

This test included the questions from the previous example. These worked for environmental charities. For The Nature Conservancy, donation likelihood was

The questions also worked for World Wildlife Fund. Giving likelihood was 13% when reading about causes or causes and projects. It was 16% when rating causes. It was 19% when rating causes and projects.447

Another experiment explored how to get the “rich and powerful” to give.448 Alumni mailings went to two groups. One had response cards with this statement:

“Annual alumni giving through the Penn Fund directly supports these priorities of undergraduate education.

🗹 Student financial aid

🗹 Student and academic life

🗹 Residential life

🗹 Special campus initiatives”

The other’s response cards instead asked a question. They removed the checks from the boxes and added,

“Tell us which is most important to you.

(Please check one box)”

The “rich” were those from the wealthiest census tracts. Among the “rich” sending a gift, the average size was $192 for the first response card. It was $463 for the second. The “powerful” were those listed as being on a firm’s board of directors. Among the “powerful” sending a gift, the average size was $158 for the first response card. It was $714 for the second.449

Asking for opinions in other ways can also work. For example, giving people the chance to vote on a project works. In experiments, this increases subsequent volunteering450 and donations.451

In fundraising, “victory” is about the impact of a gift. Describing a potential victory as important can help. But asking works better than telling. By answering, the donor can personally commit to the importance of the victory. The donor can take ownership. This can turn a victory into the donor’s victory. It can help connect the victory with the donor’s identity.

Challenge questions: Theory

In Socratic fundraising, the final step is making the ask. This is the challenge that promises a victory.452 [Challenge → Victory]. But there’s a problem. A survey isn’t going to ask for an immediate donation. (Doing this can de-legitimize the questions.)

The immediate goal isn’t to get the donor to make a gift. But it’s related. The goal is to get the donor to predict a gift. A prediction is still just an opinion. The question is still in the realm of opinion gathering. But asking for a prediction is surprisingly powerful.

Academic research calls it the “Question-Behavior Effect” (QBE). The idea is this: Suppose we ask a person to do some pro-social act. It might be donating, volunteering, giving blood, voting, recycling, etc. That decision requires a tradeoff.

Now suppose instead we ask a person to predict if they will act. Predicting the behavior also has positive identity effects. (It affirms, “I am the type of person who gives, volunteers, recycles, etc.”) But a prediction is free. It’s not a contract. It requires no effort. There’s no cost.

What happens? People are less likely to act pro-socially than to predict they will act pro-socially. That’s no surprise. The surprise is this: Once people predict they will act, they then change their future behavior. They change it to match their prediction. The result? Asking for the prediction first increases pro-social behavior. In experiments, this works with

It also works with donations.458 One experiment asked for this prediction:

“If you were contacted by your high school or college and asked to donate money, would you do so?”

Asking this a few days before a fundraising request worked. The share of those donating to their college increased by half.459

Another experiment asked some people a different question. It asked how much they would “hypothetically” donate to a project. Asking this increased actual donations later. Gifts went up 43% for a project helping turtles. They went up 25% for one helping elephants.460

QBE shows that people tend to change their behavior to match their predictions. This matters for survey questions. The survey goal is not just to get a donation prediction. It’s also to get a positive prediction.

The lead-up questions can help.461 They can connect the donor’s history, people, and values with the cause, the charity, or the project. They can help the donor define a personally meaningful victory. These steps help increase the subsequent gift prediction. Thus, the gift prediction should come towards the end of the survey.462 It’s the punchline!

Challenge questions: Examples

Here is an example of questions asking about the challenge (i.e., the gift).

Many people who care about this cause like to give in different ways. How likely is it that you would consider any of the following gifts in the next six months?

[Gift options (row headings)]

Gift by volunteering time

Gift by check or credit card

Gift as an automatic monthly withdrawal

Gift in a will (if you happened to sign a new will)

Gift in a will in honor or memory of a loved one

Gift that pays you income for life

Gift of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds that avoids taxes

Gift of real estate that avoids capital gains taxes

Gift from an IRA/401(k) that avoids income taxes

[Response options (column headings)]

__ Definitely

__ Somewhat likely

__ Unlikely

__ Have already done so

__ Would like more info

Challenge questions: Comments

Why this wording? Why this sequence? Let’s unpack the details. The question begins with a “social norm” statement.

“Many people who care about this cause like to give in different ways.”

In charitable giving experiments, stating that others also give is powerful. Adding that they “like to” do it is even more powerful.463 Adding that they “care about” the cause helps, too.464 This uses social-emotional language. Such language encourages sharing.465 It also shows these other people are like the donor. (The donor cares about the cause, too.) It delivers a powerful fundraising message. It implies,

“People like me do things like this.”

The next part asks for a prediction. It asks,

“How likely is it that you would consider any of the following gifts in the next six months?”

The question predicts likelihood. In experiments, asking, “how likely is it that you will do X” works.466 It influences behavior more than asking if a person “intends to” act.467 Why? Failing to act makes a positive prediction wrong. But it doesn’t necessarily contradict a statement about intentions. Predictions are more powerful than intentions.

But this prediction is still a soft, safe, “no obligation” question. A positive answer doesn’t cost anything. It doesn’t risk anything. The question just asks for thoughts. It’s even softer because it asks what the donor “might consider.” The longer time horizon softens the question even more. Yet, six months is still soon enough to warrant a follow-up contact.

Challenge options: Volunteering

The challenge question uses a long list of gift options. It starts with volunteering. Why? Of course, it’s possible the charity needs volunteers. (And people who volunteer are more likely to donate.) But there’s another reason. Asking about intentions to volunteer increases willingness to donate. In one experiment, first asking about volunteering led to a 50% increase in donation intentions.468 Asking about giving time triggers a more social-emotional mindset.469 This mindset encourages donations. Leading with the volunteering question nudges people. It nudges them to predict future donations.

Challenge options: Check, credit card, automatic withdrawal

The next question references the most common gifts – check or credit card. This helps ease into the later – more exotic – gifts. It groups all the gifts together. They’re all just “ways to give.”

Donors can confidently check this box. (This is a donor survey, after all.) By doing so, the donor puts himself in the category. He is the kind of person who makes gifts like these.

The next question moves to the simplest upgrade – the monthly donor. Any indication of interest can trigger a follow up contact.470

Challenge options: Bequest

Asking about estate plans is tricky. Using “death” words is dangerous.471 It reduces interest in estate gifts and other transactions.472 Messages that “lead with death” tend to have low response rates.

One charity I worked with had sent an appeal letter asking for gifts in wills. The letter very strongly led with death. The response card included only questions about estate planning. Sending 30,000 of these letters resulted in no responses.

Later, the same charity sent a brief survey. It included the same types of questions near the end. Again, the questions asked about gifts in wills. But this time the charity got a 22% response rate. A year later, they re-sent to the non-responders. They got another 18% response rate from this group. Leading with death failed. But “burying” the “death” question at the end of a survey worked.

The survey does this here. It “buries” the “death” question. The list starts with the most familiar ways to give. The estate gift is in the middle of the list. It’s worded the same as every other gift. It’s just another way to give. It uses the simplest, friendliest language.473 The question is softened further by making it hypothetical. It adds, “(if you happened to sign a new will).”

If the survey is focused on estate gifts, earlier phrasing can be adjusted. In estate giving, nothing is more attractive than permanence. One experiment compared describing a charity as either

The first description normally worked better. But for people reminded of their death, the second did. For them, it led to twice as much giving.474 In a death context, permanence language works.

Another experiment found this for memorial donations. Adding a permanence goal worked best.475 Death reminders trigger this desire for permanence.

If encouraging estate gifts is the goal, permanence helps. The survey words can be adjusted to match. For example, in a project or cause description, the word “protect” might become

Challenge options: Memorial bequest and income gifts

The next question asks about the memorial gift in a will. In one experiment, asking this question worked. It increased interest in an estate gift for about one out of four people.476

This shows another function of a survey. It can teach. The gift idea might be new. It might never have occurred to the donor before. A donor might think this:

“I didn’t know I could make a bequest gift in honor of a loved one.”

A survey can introduce other charitable options. It can ask about

In each case, a question introduces the idea. If it piques curiosity, the donor responds positively. This can lead to valuable conversations.

Challenge options: IRA Gifts

The last question asks about a

“Gift from an IRA that avoids income taxes.”

This question can do different things for different donors. First, it is a stealth estate giving question. Heirs inheriting IRA money must pay income taxes on it. (This is true for any size estate.) But any part left to charity avoids these taxes.480 The question response can give permission for this conversation. Adding this estate gift is easy. It can typically be done online.

For donors over age 70½, another option arises. They can make current gifts directly from their IRA.481 This money is earned income. But it has never been taxed. If it’s donated, it never will be. For donors over age 72, these gifts do more. They reduce required distributions that otherwise create taxes.

Challenge options: Gifts of assets

The final three questions lead with value. They reference the tax benefit. This phrasing works in experiments. In one, only 14% were “interested now” in pursuing a gift described as,

“Make a gift of stocks or bonds to charity.”482

This increased to 20% when it was described as,

“Avoid capital gains tax by making a gift of stocks or bonds to charity”

With this phrasing, people were more interested in giving. They’re also more likely to want to learn more.

What do people want to read about on their favorite charity’s website? One study of over 5,000 people asked this question. The share who were “definitely” or “might be” interested in reading more was,483

Leading with value works. Simple words work.

Asset gift questions can be powerful in other ways. They can reveal capacity. A person wanting information about gifts of real estate likely owns real estate. The same is true for stocks, bonds, or any listed assets. These questions also imply that making such gifts is common. This supports a social norm of giving assets.

Just thinking about these questions is powerful. It can change the reference point for a gift. A cash donation tends to be compared with other regular cash expenditures from disposable income. This is a small reference point.

A donation of stocks tends to be compared with stock holdings. This is a large reference point. The same idea applies to IRA gifts, real estate gifts, and estate gifts. These are not gifts from disposable income. These are gifts of wealth.

Wealth is a large reference point. It makes a large gift feel more reasonable. Thinking about such gifts can change a donor’s “mental accounting.” It can make wealth “donation relevant.”484

Challenge answers

The column headings give the answer options. Notice, something is missing. There isn’t a hard “no” option. The most negative option is, “Unlikely.” Why? QBE shows that predictions are powerful. People tend to change their future behavior to match their predictions. So, we don’t want donors committing to a hard “no.” Here, that isn’t possible.

Also missing is a “don’t know” option. These options are attractive. They’re easy. But that’s not the goal. We want donors to spend time thinking about these types of gifts. Forcing other responses requires more thought.

Removing the “don’t know” can also help with follow-up opportunities. Some “don’t know” answers will instead become positive responses when that option is removed. A response of “somewhat likely” can justify a follow-up conversation. A “don’t know” won’t do this.

Another option is, “Have already done so.” This has a specific purpose. It’s to get information about the gift in a will. (Other past gifts would already appear in the charity’s records.) Including this for all gifts prevents the will question from standing out. (Remember, we want to “bury” the death question. It should feel like just another way to give.) Also, for those who have made any gifts, answering helps donors think this:

“I am the type of person who makes gifts like these.”

Survey outcomes: Follow up conversations

In Socratic fundraising, there’s a final step before the ask. That step is to get permission to present options. This is permission to make the ask. A survey can help.

A donor might check, “Would like more information.” Or they might check “Definitely” or “Somewhat likely” for an asset gift. These give a reason for a contact. The contact can lead to permission to make the ask. A call might sound like the following.

“Hello Sara?”

“Hi, this is [name] from [charity]. Don’t worry, I’m not calling to ask for a gift today. I wanted to thank you for your years of support of [cause]. Your gifts have really made a difference for [beneficiaries].”

“Also, I wanted to thank you for completing our survey a few days ago. This really helps our leadership. It’s important for them to know what matters to loyal donors like you. So, thanks for that!”

“I also wanted to follow up with you on one thing. You mentioned in the survey that you [“would like more information about” / “might be considering”] a gift [“of real estate” / “of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds” / “from an IRA”]. I work with many donors like you who’ve made these types of gifts. The extra tax benefits really make it a smarter way to give. Would you mind telling me if anything in particular prompted you to [request that information / consider this type of a gift]?”

“I’d love to share some examples of what others like you are doing. I think you’ll find some of the options interesting. This can also help with your giving to other causes, not just ours. I’ll be in your area next Tuesday. Would your calendar allow us to meet at 2pm?”

“Great! I’ll put together some options for you. Before we meet, is there anything you want me to know about the [“real estate” / “investments” / “IRA”]? I know sometimes there are special issues with [“property” / “certain types of investments”].”

Of course, this is just one example. There are many ways to phrase this conversation.485 But the goal is the same. Get permission to present options.

That meeting then allows for a soft proposal. It gives examples of gifts the donor could make. It uses any asset details from the survey or the conversation. It shows the benefits of giving smarter.

More importantly, it should show the impact from the donor’s gift. This impact should be in the areas most important to the donor. Fortunately, the survey reveals that, too.

Survey outcomes: Follow up calculations

This follow up can be powerful. But it requires changing the way most charities do donor surveys. Charities are used to big mailings. That’s how appeal letters work. But it’s not how surveys work. At least not if we want to follow up with donors. Follow up requires sending small batches.

How small? Calculate this backwards. Start with end. How many follow-up contacts can you make in a short time? Divide this by the expected response rate. Divide this by the expected share of surveys with positive answers to key questions. That’s the maximum to send out at one time.

For example, (50 follow-up calls / .12 response rate) / .20 positive answers = 2,083 surveys. If we don’t know these numbers, we guess. The first few batches will show the answers. Of course, simple follow ups can work at higher volumes. If a donor wants a publication, newsletter, or event details, that’s easy.486

Survey outcomes: Teach something about the donor

Questions can work even without the follow up.487 The idea behind the Socratic Method is that questions can teach. More powerfully, questions can help a person teach himself. Here, questions can help the donor connect his values, people, and history with the charity. They can help the donor define a personally meaningful victory. This personal discovery process can increase interest in giving.

Survey outcomes: Teach something about the charity

Beyond this, the survey itself can inform. It can share information about charity projects. Rating the importance of a project requires learning about it. A donor might think this:

Survey outcomes: Teach something about giving

The survey can reference new gift types. Rating the likelihood of making a gift requires thinking about it. Questions can imply that others like the donor make these gifts. This establishes social norms. Questions can change mindsets. Many donors think of gifts only as coming from disposable income. Asking about asset gifts can change that reference point.

A donor might think, “I didn’t know that other people,

Survey outcomes: Teach something by asking for guidance

Other questions can teach in a different way. They can ask for opinions about communications.488 By giving a judgment, donors are engaging with the messages. Examples of this approach include,

1. Made me value the work of [charity] even more.

2. Increased my connection to the cause.

3. Moved me emotionally.”489

Survey outcomes: Timely reminders

Being “top of the mind” is important for any donation.491 But it’s particularly important for rare event gifts. The sale of stocks or real estate may seldom arise. But any parts donated before the sale avoid capital gains tax. Being “top of the mind” before such events is critical.

Drafting a new will tends to be triggered by rare life events. Family changes (marriage, divorce, widowhood, birth of a first child or grandchild) trigger new planning.492 Health events (diagnosis with cancer, declining health) do the same. Being “top of the mind” at such times is critical.493 A survey can remind donors of these gift ideas. Sometimes the reminder will come at just the right time.

Survey outcomes: Learn something

First, a warning. This isn’t survey research. It’s Socratic fundraising. There are guides for survey research. Don’t get confused by these. That’s not what we’re doing. Aimée Lindenberger explains,

“A good [donor] survey is not about information. It’s about self-reflection. It’s a conversation on paper.”494

The donor survey uses questions to guide the donor. It helps the donor discover something about himself. Its purpose is to persuade.495 But we can still learn something. Along the way we can receive useful information. A donor’s answers can lead to meaningful follow-up conversations.

Sometimes we might analyze groups of surveys. But we must keep in mind that these are persuasive surveys. The responses are intentionally biased.496 This means relative levels will be more meaningful. Asking, “Are people interested in project X?” isn’t the right question. The survey is designed to generate positive answers. The better question is, “How does interest in project X compare with project Y or Z?”

Also, questions can measure relative shifts in attitudes. We might want to know, “Are the legacy fundraising messages working?” These gifts won’t arrive for many years. But regular surveys can show donor intentions. A shift in responses over time can reveal progress.497

Surveys can also help improve the charity’s words and phrases. Appeal letters can test these for small gifts. But this is harder for major gifts of assets. A survey can help. Phrases or questions that increase predictions will tend to increase donations.498 We can alter stories, words, or sequencing. Each small batch survey can be another experiment. This testing helps constantly improve the messages.

Other survey issues: Print or online?

Online surveys are cheaper than mail or telephone surveys. Response rates are also lower.499 The question of which to use depends on the goals. Start with the online survey. It’s the cheapest.

If the goal is just to get a set of responses, this can be enough. Reaching more people requires more channels. Next, mail to those who don’t respond to the online request. This is more expensive. Finally, call those who don’t respond to mail. This is yet more expensive. (It’s also riskier if callers are outsiders or aren’t trained well.)

Other survey issues: How long should it be?

Some donor surveys use just a few questions. An appeal reply card might add just one or two.500 Others are several pages long. Which is better? The answer is this: It’s a tradeoff.

Within reason, more questions are better. For example, one experiment used some of the previous questions. These were about the donor’s (1) people, (2) values, and (3) life story connections. Using all three types worked better than using any one or two alone.501 More was better.

Another experiment tested the effects of reading planned gift donor stories.502 Reading seven stories worked better than reading four. Reading four worked better than reading none. More was better.

This effect is not specific to fundraising. Psychology studies show the same thing. Triggering more expressions of an attitude changes things. It increases commitment to the underlying belief.503 It increases actions that match those beliefs.504

But there is a tradeoff. Questions don’t work if donors don’t answer them. The longer the survey, the less likely it is to be completed.505 “Length” here isn’t just about page numbers or word count. It’s about how easy it feels to take the survey. Simple words help. Short sentences do to. Active verbs also help.

Attractive design also increases response rates. One study showed the positive effects of

Most of these increase the physical length of the survey. But they may make it feel easier. They make it more inviting.

These design elements were most important for one group. They increased answers the most from the oldest respondents. Getting more responses isn’t just about making the survey short. It’s about making it feel attractive and easy.

Conclusion

Done the right way, asking questions is powerful. The format can differ. It might start with a social conversation. It might be part of a formal campaign feasibility study.507 It might be a focus group. It might be a phone survey. It might be a paper or electronic survey. But the steps are the same. The principles don’t change. Appreciative inquiry is compelling. Socratic fundraising works.