AI Enablement vs Autonomous AI

There are said to be six levels of autonomous driving that range from no autonomy (the car my grandmother had with the radio that had the click-in buttons), to partial autonomy (my mother’s car with adaptive cruise control), to high-autonomy (our family car that offers human-engaged self-driving capabilities), to fully autonomous vehicles (Waymo, which Google first launched in 2009). 

Before our team launched the autonomous fundraiser, AI in fundraising had been limited to partial automation, at best. Yes, AI can generate a first-draft of a self-written email to a donor on a fundraiser’s behalf, can suggest donors to visit when fundraisers travel, and maybe even partially self-generate a first draft of a contact report for a frontline fundraiser. In our industry, however, all AI up to this point has been built to enable and accelerate frontline fundraisers.  

When my team and I were building Gravyty back in 2017, the sole purpose of our company was to use AI to build efficiencies for frontline fundraisers so they could manage a portfolio of 600 donors instead of 200 donors (fundraiser enablement). And really, our initial mission was to solve the challenges I faced working as a major gifts officer, responsible for the entire West Coast.

The problem we had building AI for fundraiser enablement was that AI was bound to the fundraiser’s ability to take action. There is a clear limit to the number of interactions traditional fundraisers can have with donors in a day, week, or month. And, although building technology was important, it lacked scale. The scale of the impact of the autonomous fundraiser is why autonomous fundraising is the most important initiative in the sector for Social Good.

The future of our industry will be determined by the difference between AI fundraiser enablement and AI autonomous fundraising. The question won’t be (nor should it be) whether AI can replace or outperform fundraisers (particularly in their ability to build relationships) but rather whether AI can replicate a fundraiser’s ability to generate revenue and drive engagement with donors who are most likely to be overlooked and neglected, but still asked for a gift once a year. 

Because of its scale, the importance of this initiative can’t be overstated. Our team’s ability to prove that an autonomous fundraiser can independently replicate the revenue and engagement of a DXO or leadership annual giving officer will offer a solution to high turnover, fundraiser staffing shortages, and an inconsistent and compromised donor experience. All donors, despite how much they can give, should be treated like major and important donors. Autonomous fundraising is the only way that all donors will get this type of personalized engagement. 

This week, our team is testing the Virtual Engagement Officer’s ability to self-generate and self-write robotically hand-written introductory notes, birthday cards (for July birthdays), and stewardship notes to thank donors in its portfolio for their EOY gifts. Our team will also spot-test and review our FNA Version 1.2 outputs (our fundraising nets and algorithms which act as the autonomous fundraiser’s brain) for the Virtual Engagement Officer’s portfolio which categorizes all 1,000 donors, automatically creates a 12-month dynamic journey for each donor, establishes a next step for the VEO to take with a donor, and prepares to take that action. 

These are still early days, but the progress is overwhelming, happening faster than we expected and will undoubtedly have a deep and lasting impact on the future of fundraising.