Set the Purpose of the Next Move
Before you choose what to do next with a donor, you need to know what
decision you are trying to make — and what evidence would make it. This
lesson teaches the standard for choosing a next move: not by gut feel,
not by calendar, but by identifying the specific gap in what you know or
what the donor understands, and designing one action to close it.
The question that changes how you plan
Most fundraisers who struggle with moves management are not lazy. They are busy. They have a full calendar, regular donor contact, and a CRM that looks active. The problem is that their planning question is wrong.
They ask: “What should I do next?”
That question produces activity. It generates coffees, phone calls, thank-you notes and event invitations — all of which feel productive because they involve the donor. What it does not produce is progression.
The planning question that drives revenue is different:
“What do I need to know — or what does the donor need to understand — before I can confidently take the relationship one stage further?”
That question produces a move.
The distinction matters because it changes the design of the action. “What should I do next?” defaults to what is comfortable and familiar. “What evidence do I need?” forces you to identify the specific gap standing between where the donor is now and where they need to be before the next stage of the relationship is possible.
Lesson 1 established that a move must have a declared purpose before it happens and must produce evidence or a shift in the donor’s position. This lesson teaches how to identify that purpose with enough discipline that you can plan the move, choose the right person to carry it, and judge afterward whether it worked.
Why “getting to know them better” is not a purpose
The most common answer fundraisers give when asked to state the purpose of an upcoming donor meeting is some version of: “To deepen the relationship.”
This is not a purpose. It is a preference.
A purpose is testable. At the end of the move, you can answer: did the action produce what I was trying to produce? “Deepening the relationship” cannot be tested. It cannot fail. It produces no specific evidence, identifies no gap and requires no specific design.
Compare:
“The purpose of this meeting is to deepen the relationship.” ↓ Untestable. Any pleasant lunch satisfies it.
“The purpose of this meeting is to learn whether Rashida’s primary interest is in the scholarship program or the research endowment, because that determines which of the two project options I present at the next meeting.” ↓ Testable. At the end of the meeting, you either know which direction she leans or you know you need to find a different way to surface it.
The second version tells you what the meeting needs to produce, which tells you how to design it — what questions to ask, whether to bring visual materials, whether you need a program leader in the room, how long the meeting should be.
This is the discipline at the centre of move planning.
The Evidence Gap Method — four questions before every move
Before planning any action with a qualified donor, answer these four questions in sequence. If you cannot answer all four, the move is not ready to plan.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── QUESTION 1: What do I not yet know that I need to know? ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
What it is: The specific piece of missing information — about the donor’s interests, values, capacity signals, readiness, relationships or timing — that is currently limiting your ability to plan the next stage.
Why it matters: Without a named information gap, a meeting has no clear objective. You default to rapport maintenance, which is not a move.
How to find it: Review what you recorded after the last interaction. Ask: “If I were going to propose a significant project to this donor in six months, what would I need to understand that I don’t understand now?” The answer is your gap.
Examples of genuine evidence gaps: – “I don’t know whether her interest in early childhood education is philosophical or personal — whether she has a direct family connection or is motivated by broader policy concern. That changes the program match.” – “I know he can give at this level. I don’t know whether he considers himself a philanthropist or just a generous person. That changes the conversation frame.” – “She has been giving for three years but has never visited. I don’t know whether her lack of engagement signals low interest or just a busy life.”
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── QUESTION 2: What does the donor need to understand or experience? ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
What it is: The gap on the donor’s side — what they need to know, see, feel or be exposed to before they are ready to go deeper.
Why it matters: Moves are two-directional. You are gathering evidence, but the donor is also building clarity, trust and mission connection. A move that only produces information for the fundraiser without doing anything for the donor’s readiness is incomplete.
How to find it: Ask: “What is the donor’s understanding of us right now, and where is the gap?” Then ask: “What would change their picture of us — or of what is possible — most efficiently?”
Examples of donor-side gaps: – “He respects the organisation but doesn’t know how the research program translates into patient outcomes. A site visit would close that gap faster than any conversation.” – “She keeps expressing doubt about whether the organisation will be around in twenty years. She needs to hear from the board chair, not the fundraiser, about governance and financial stability.” – “He has been asking about what happened to the program he funded three years ago. Until that question is answered with specificity, nothing else is useful.”
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── QUESTION 3: What is the one action most likely to close both gaps at once? ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
What it is: The most efficient next action — the one that produces the evidence you need AND advances what the donor needs to understand, in a single interaction.
Why it matters: Over-engineering moves wastes cultivation time. If one well-structured conversation closes both gaps, there is no case for two separate interactions.
How to choose it: List the possible actions (meeting, call, letter, event, site visit, introduction, impact report, written case, peer conversation). For each, ask: which closes the most important gap fastest? Which does the most for the donor’s readiness? Which fits where the donor is comfortable right now?
Note: the action that is easiest is rarely the answer. The action that closes the most significant gap is the answer.
Examples of choosing the best action: – Gap: fundraiser doesn’t know if the donor’s interest is personal or policy-based; donor has never seen the work up close. → Best next action: a site visit with a brief program leader introduction, structured so the fundraiser can observe the donor’s reaction and ask one open question about what resonated.
- Gap: fundraiser doesn’t know the donor’s giving timeline; donor has expressed uncertainty about the organisation’s future direction. → Best next action: a one-to-one conversation with the CEO, framed as “sharing thinking about the next five years” — this addresses the donor’s concern while creating an opportunity to surface timing naturally.
- Gap: fundraiser doesn’t know how the donor feels about a specific program option; donor is already well-informed about the cause. → Best next action: a written short-form case for one program, sent ahead of a follow-up call, so the call can be a response conversation rather than an explanation.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── QUESTION 4: How will I know the move worked? ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
What it is: The specific outcome — in the donor’s behaviour, words or confirmed understanding — that tells you the move achieved its purpose.
Why it matters: Without a pre-defined outcome, any pleasant interaction looks like success. This is how cultivation stalls invisibly: every meeting feels fine; nothing actually changes.
How to set it: Before the move, write one sentence in the form: “This move has worked if [the donor says / does / confirms / reveals] [X].”
Examples of testable outcomes: – “This move has worked if Rashida says which program interests her more, or asks a specific question about one of them.” – “This move has worked if James agrees to a site visit or asks about the governance of the endowment fund.” – “This move has worked if Yolanda’s question about the previous program is answered to her satisfaction — which I’ll know because she stops raising it.”
If the move happens and you cannot tick the outcome, you have two options: redesign the next action to try again, or update your evidence-gap assessment because what you found out is more important than what you set out to find. Either way, you decide with information rather than optimism.
Development manager, Catherine, works for a mid-sized arts organisation in Brisbane. She has a qualified donor — Bernard, a retired corporate lawyer in his mid-sixties — who has given $5,000 annually for six years and attended every major gala for four. He is warm, engaged and consistently complimentary about the organisation’s work. He has a private investment portfolio and his wealth-screening profile suggests capacity for a mid-to-major gift in the $50,000–$150,000 range.
Catherine’s CEO has asked her to “move Bernard along” before the financial year ends. Catherine has a good relationship with him. He is easy to meet. She is planning to invite him to a lunch where she can introduce the organisation’s new artistic director, who joined six months ago.
Gift size: mid ($5k p.a., capacity for $50k–$150k). Relationship: long-loyal. Channel: face-to-face. Conflict type: pressure vs. restraint / cultivation discipline.
The tension: Bernard is a strong candidate and Catherine is under genuine time pressure. But “introduce the new artistic director” is an activity, not a purpose. If Catherine goes into this lunch without a clearer move design, she will have a warm and pleasant interaction — and still not know whether Bernard is ready for a deeper conversation, what his interest in the future program is, or what would make a significant gift meaningful to him personally.
She also faces a real risk in the other direction: if she over-engineers the lunch with too many objectives, it becomes an interrogation rather than a conversation.
The question Catherine needs to answer before she plans this lunch is not “What should I do?” It is: “What is the gap — in what I know, and in what Bernard understands — that this lunch is best placed to close?”
Weak response
Planning by habit instead of by purpose
Catherine’s calendar note reads:
“Bernard lunch — introduce Sofia [artistic director]. Catch up on how he’s finding the new season. Good opportunity to strengthen the relationship before end of financial year. Maybe mention the capital campaign if it comes up naturally.”
At the lunch, Catherine introduces Sofia. Bernard and Sofia chat about the new season’s programming choices for twenty minutes. Bernard is charming and enthusiastic. He says he thinks the new direction is bold and he’s excited to see it develop. Catherine mentions the capital campaign briefly. Bernard nods and says he’ll “think about how he might be more involved.” They agree to catch up again next quarter.
Catherine records the interaction as: “Excellent lunch. Strong engagement. Bernard is very positive about the new AD. Warm. Follow up Q2.”
Coaching notes
Why this doesn’t move Bernard
The interaction was successful as a social event. It was not a move.
Three specific failures:
First: no declared purpose. Catherine had no pre-defined evidence gap and no testable outcome. “Maybe mention the campaign if it comes up naturally” is not a plan — it is a hope. The lunch was designed to be pleasant, which it was, and nothing else.
Second: the introduction of Sofia served the organisation’s agenda, not Bernard’s readiness. Sofia is interesting to Bernard socially. But Catherine has no idea whether Bernard’s interest in the capital campaign is in the building itself, the endowment, a naming opportunity, the access it creates to new audiences, or simply his loyalty to the organisation. That is the real gap — and the lunch did not attempt to close it.
Third: “He’ll think about how he might be more involved” is not a commitment signal. It is polite disengagement. A donor who is genuinely moving toward a significant gift says something different: they ask a specific question, they raise a concern, they reference a decision they’re making, they connect the conversation to something personal. Bernard said none of that. Catherine did not notice because she had no framework for what she was listening for.
The financial year deadline creates pressure to act. The response to that pressure should not be more activity — it should be better-designed activity. Catherine’s next lunch with Bernard is not yet scheduled. She still has time to design a move rather than repeat a coffee.
Better response
Planning the same lunch with a declared purpose
Catherine applies the Evidence Gap Method before planning the lunch.
Question 1 — what do I not yet know? “I know Bernard loves this organisation and has the capacity for a much larger gift. I don’t know what role he imagines for himself in it. Is he a long-loyal supporter who values his connection but doesn’t see himself as a major philanthropist? Or is he someone who has been waiting for the right project to do something meaningful? I don’t know whether his identity around giving is ‘supporter’ or ‘philanthropist.’ That’s the gap.”
Question 2 — what does Bernard need to understand or experience? “Bernard has never heard the case for the capital campaign directly. He probably knows it exists. But he’s never been asked what he thinks about it, which means he’s never had to form a view. He needs to hear the actual ambition — not a pitch, but the genuine picture of what the organisation is trying to do in the next decade — and I need to see how he responds to it.”
Question 3 — what is the one best action? “The Sofia introduction is still a good idea — she’s articulate about the vision and her presence makes the ambition credible. But the design changes. The lunch needs one open question from me, after Sofia speaks, to give Bernard room to respond to the vision personally, not just socially. Something like: ‘You’ve watched this organisation for a long time — where do you think this next chapter could take it?’”
Question 4 — how will I know the move worked? “This lunch has worked if Bernard says something that reveals how he sees himself in relation to the organisation’s future — whether he refers to himself as a supporter, a stakeholder, someone with a stake in what happens, or someone with no particular view. Either answer is useful. What would not be useful is him leaving without having been invited to form a view at all.”
At the lunch, Catherine introduces Sofia, who speaks briefly and authentically about what she’s trying to build. Catherine then turns to Bernard: “You’ve followed this organisation for years. Where do you think this next chapter could take it?”
Bernard pauses — a real pause — and then says: “I’ve always wondered whether you’d ever be bold enough to try something like this. I’ve seen a lot of arts organisations play it safe. I actually think the building matters more than people realise. The city needs a place like this.”
Catherine records: “Bernard used the word ‘city’ and ‘matters’ unprompted. He responded to the vision with personal investment, not politeness. He has a view on the building. He sees himself as someone with a stake in the outcome. This is not a transactional donor. Next move: a one-to-one conversation about the capital campaign specifically — what the building makes possible, not just what it costs. Timing: before end of financial year. I will design that conversation around one question: what role would feel right to him in something like this?”
Coaching notes
What changed and why it matters
The second version of the lunch covers the same ground — same venue, same introduction, same general warmth. The design is entirely different.
Catherine went in knowing the exact gap she was trying to close: whether Bernard sees himself as a supporter or a philanthropist with a stake in the organisation’s future. She designed one question to surface that. She knew in advance what she was listening for.
Bernard’s response — the pause, the word “city,” the reference to boldness, the phrase “matters more than people realise” — is the kind of evidence that changes how a fundraiser plans the next six months. It is not a commitment. It is not an ask. It is a clear signal that Bernard has personal investment in the question of what this organisation becomes, not just warmth toward what it is.
That is exactly what the move was designed to produce.
Two things to notice about the risk in the other direction: Catherine did not ask Bernard how much he might give. She did not mention a gift amount. She did not declare an ask. The Evidence Gap Method is not about accelerating toward revenue at the expense of trust — it is about doing the right work at the right time so that when the relationship reaches the point of a major gift conversation, both parties are ready for it. As research on Australian donor motivation consistently finds, cause connection drives giving — and that connection is built through intentional exposure, not frequency of contact. (Source: CAF Australia Giving, 2019; Giving Australia.)
The over-engineering risk: if Catherine had designed four questions for that lunch, or had brought a brochure, or had mentioned the campaign before Sofia finished speaking, she would have shifted the tone from conversation to pitch. The Evidence Gap Method asks for one purpose and one testable outcome — not a full agenda.
The decision standard for every move
The next move is not the one that feels natural. It is the one that closes the
most important gap between where the donor is now and where they need to be
before the relationship can go deeper. Identify the gap first. Then design
the action.
Action
Apply the Evidence Gap Method to your next three donor interactions
Before your next interaction with each of your three highest-priority donors, write four sentences — one for each question in the Evidence Gap Method:
- The specific information I am missing: Write what you don’t yet know about this donor’s interests, readiness, values, timing, relationships or identity as a philanthropist. Be precise: “I don’t know whether her interest is personal or policy-based” is a gap. “I want to know more about her” is not.
- What the donor needs to understand or experience: Write what would change the donor’s picture of the organisation, the project or the opportunity — not what you want to say, but what they need to receive.
- The one action most likely to close both gaps: Decide between the realistic options — meeting, call, site visit, introduction, written material, event, peer conversation. Choose the one that closes the most important gap, not the most convenient.
- How I will know the move worked: Complete this sentence before the action: “This move has worked if [the donor says / does / confirms / reveals] [X].” If you cannot complete it, redesign the action.
After the interaction, record whether you got the outcome. If you did not, note what you learned instead — and whether that changes the evidence gap going into the next move.
This is not extra paperwork. It replaces the vague “great meeting” note with a record that actually tells the next version of you what you know and what to do next.
Summary
What you can do now that you couldn’t before
You can identify the specific evidence gap that should drive the next donor action — what you need to know, what the donor needs to understand, and what single action closes both most efficiently. You can set a testable outcome before any donor interaction and judge afterward whether the move worked. That is the standard that separates move planning from diary management.