How to Get More From Your Event or Campaign Post-Mortem

After every appeal or event I work on, I make the team sit down for a post-mortem exercise, no matter how it went. It’s Dan Sullivan’s Experience Transformer, and in this episode I walk you through all four parts of it the way I’d walk through it with a client, including why we always start with what worked instead of jumping straight to what went wrong. I also share some of the research on why debriefs are one of the most affordable ways to get better at this work. And then I end where I always seem to end up: what happens to your donor after they give. Most post-mortems stop at the moment of the gift. I think that’s exactly where the most important part of the relationship begins, and I’ll show you how to fold it into your review so it doesn’t get skipped again. Let's stay connected: ➡️ Subscribe to Giving Good, my newsletter dedicated to rethinking donor retention and acquisition. 📩 Built for Meaning on Substack — research, reframes, and practical insights delivered straight to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE HERE 💼 Connect on LinkedIn Sources & citations Sullivan, D. The Experience Transformer®. Strategic Coach thinking tool. See “What You Can Learn From Failure” and “What To Do When Good People Make Mistakes,” Strategic Coach Multiplier Mindset blog. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857–871. Burk, P. (2003). Donor-Centered Fundraising. Cygnus Applied Research. Samek, A., & Longfield, C. (2019). Do thank-you calls increase charitable giving? Expert forecasts and field experimental evidence. Working paper. Sourcing transparency note On-air phrasing is conversational and some figures are rounded; the citations above have the exact numbers. The Burk finding comes from a practitioner test reported in her book rather than a peer-reviewed study, and it has been challenged by later research (Samek & Longfield), which is why both are listed.