Free Guide, Hidden Agenda - engagement and value-exchange products in a nutshell
They promise warm leads and long-term income. In reality? Low conversions, high churn, and a dangerously thin veneer of supporter trust.
"Thus was Troy betrayed by its own judgment."
Virgil, Aeneid
It’s not often I begin a post with a quote from Virgil. In truth, I don’t know many. But this one has stayed with me. And in recent months, it’s come to mind more than once.
It refers, of course, to the fall of Troy. Not a defeat in the strictest military sense, but by misplaced trust. The Trojans weren’t conquered by the Greek army – they dragged a wooden horse into the heart of their city which led to their downfall.
This is a cautionary tale that should resonate for fundraisers when they consider certain fundraising strategies – specifically, those creations that go by the name of engagement or value exchange products.
The Trojan Horse in Modern Fundraising
I first wrote about this technique years ago, using this cartoon to illustrate my concerns. Since then, my view hasn’t changed – in fact, the steady stream of stories about charities getting their fingers burned has only deepened them.
How do these approaches work?
They’re typically framed as supporter-focused, offering something of value upfront—like a free guide on managing stress, information on a specific health condition, parenting advice, or even tips for learning a new skill.
In exchange for the resource, the supporter provides their contact details. With consent in place, the charity then follows up – usually with a regular giving ask.
It sounds thoughtful. It feels like a gentle, low-barrier way to start a supporter relationship. And at first glance, the numbers can be impressive—tens of thousands of people signing up in just a few weeks.
After all, what’s not to like? Free advice, beautifully packaged - where’s my phone?
But step back and ask the more meaningful questions:
Did it work?
Did it last?
Was it worth it?
That’s when the cracks begin to show.
The results tend to be underwhelming
Despite their peaks of popularity, there’s little transparent or publicly available evidence that these products consistently deliver strong, long-term fundraising results.
Just because well-known charities have used them doesn’t mean they work. In fact, when you do get a look at the actual numbers, the reality is often much more sobering.
In my experience, these campaigns are more often associated with:
1. Low Conversion Rates
Most people who sign up to one of these projects never go on to donate. Conversion to regular giving frequently sits below 1–2%. The lowest figures I’ve seen were hovering at about 0.0025% – for any type of gift.
2. High Attrition
Even when someone does convert, they’re likely to lapse – and when you consider why they signed up, it’s not hard to see why:
They weren’t motivated by your cause – they just wanted the freebie.
There’s never any guarantee of available wealth or emotional connection.
As a result, first-year cancellation rates are often alarmingly high – frequently worse than those seen with the conversion of raffle donors to other forms of giving.
3. High Costs
Concept development, design, print, postage, digital media spend, CRM automation, and telemarketing all adds up. I heard of one organisation that invested hundreds of thousands in one campaign - only to see a return of a few tens of thousands.
4. Data Does Not Equal Donor
Too often, fundraisers can confuse something like a request for a product with supporter engagement. But a contact detail is not a relationship. It’s not even a warm lead – unless you are able to build something meaningful from it.
Why they keep getting used
Despite all this, engagement products keep cropping up. Why?
They look exciting – and they can win awards – which means they stand out against more traditional campaigns.
They drive very rapid pipeline growth which can be very impressive. This sparks enthusiasm.
They often fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy – initial excitement over a surge of sign-ups can prompt a rushed expansion into the next phase of the campaign, long before the approach has proved its worth. Fundraisers are then left chasing conversions to justify the investment, rather than stepping back to reassess.
Hope outweighs Evidence. At a surface level, the concept feels strategically sound - but feelings don’t pay the bills.
A warning from Robert Cialdini
While Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence is often used to justify these tactics, it also includes one of the most powerful warnings against them.
He tells the story of the Hare Krishna movement, which famously handed out free flowers or books in airports ort on city streets, before immediately asking for donations.
At first, it worked brilliantly. But over time, people recognised it for what it was – a means to separate someone from their cash. So started crossing the street to avoid them.
Eventually, the Krishnas stopped wearing robes, dressing instead as ordinary people.
Even that didn’t work for long.
As Cialdini puts it:
“Too many individuals now know better than to accept unrequested offerings in public places... It is a testament to the societal value of reciprocation that we have chosen to fight the Krishnas mostly by seeking to avoid rather than to withstand the force of their gift giving.”
The risk is that charities end up in the same position. If the public begins to associate every “free guide” with a future donation ask, we may lose not just conversions – but trust, attention, and goodwill.
That’s a brand risk we can’t afford.
A better way forward
Fundraising isn’t about tricking people into giving. It’s about building belief, connection, and shared values. Of course, certain physical items – badges, bookmarks, ribbons, stickers – can work incredibly well to reinforce identity and encourage giving.
But offering a gift in order to gain contact details and then push for a donation? As a virtual Trojan horse? Not so much.
So, if you're seriously considering creating an engagement product or value exchange campaign can I suggest the following:
Speak to two or three organisations who’ve run them for at least two years. Ask about costs, returns, donor retention, and what they’d do differently.
Track financial outcomes, not just prospects or open rates.
And above all, prioritise mission-first messaging, not just tactics dressed as strategy.
Engagement products aren’t new. They aren’t innovative. And in most cases, they don’t work very well at all.
The strategy may look shiny. But too often, it’s just an expensive way to gather email addresses from people who will never donate.
It’s the textbook example of Chasing No’s
And that’s a Trojan horse no charity needs.