(And it's not because they don't care)

Wize Snaps started with a simple frustration.

Not-for-profits were doing important work—and sending well-written/well-intentioned donor emails—yet hearing nothing back from the very people they most needed to engage.

So we started analysing donor communications. Hundreds of emails. Across appeals, updates, funding requests, partnerships and board outreach.

What we found wasn't about copy quality, grammar, or even clarity.

It was about decision mismatch.

Most donor emails aren't wrong. They're just aimed at the wrong decision style.

Across hundreds of donor emails, the same pattern appeared again and again:

• Achievers were being sent long, exploratory narratives with no clear outcome

• Analyzers were asked to "trust the vision" without evidence or structure

• Guardians were pushed into urgency without reassurance or risk framing

  
  

The emails weren't bad. They were often upbeat, heartfelt, packed with stories and context—trying to show relevance, pull on heartstrings, demonstrate impact.

But they were written with the wrong details for how the recipient actually decides.

And when that happens, people don't push back—they disengage.

This becomes a much bigger problem at the top

If charities are targeting executives (epeically in the bequest space this can then be a bigger problem)

Around 75% of CEOs and senior executives tend to cluster around Achiever and Explorer decision styles.

That means they decide through:

• Outcomes

• Options

Most senior leaders don't respond to the language in the email.

They can decide quickly—if the signal is right. If it's not, the email isn't debated or declined. It's mentally parked.

The silent failure no one measures

Most organisations track:

• Open rates

• Click-throughs

• Donations

What they don't track is decision friction.

The moment where a capable, aligned, values-driven donor reads an email and thinks:

"This isn't written for how I think."

That moment doesn't show up in your dashboard. But it quietly erodes funding, advocacy and long-term support.

How we uncovered the pattern

This didn't come from theory. It came from rigorous, repetitive work.

We analysed hundreds of donor emails—appeals, updates, funding requests, board outreach—then profiled the donors they were sent to.

Not demographics. Decision styles.

How do they weigh risk? What creates confidence for them? Do they decide through outcomes, evidence, or relationships?

Then we rewrote the emails. Same mission. Same ask. Different framing.

And compared them side by side.

When the framing matched, engagement followed. When it didn't, silence.

Same cause. Different doorway.

Why this matters more now than ever

Donors aren't disengaged because they don't care.

They're disengaged because they're overloaded—and only messages that fit their decision wiring survive the cut.

The organisations that win the next decade of funding won't be louder.

They'll be more decision-aware. They'll understand that good intent doesn't equal good communication—and that every ask, every update, every invitation is still a decision moment.

That's what Wize Snaps was built to solve—not by changing what you stand for, but by finally reaching donors in the language their decisions actually speak.