Who is getting duped at Cleveland State – the development office or the donors?

Last week, Cleveland State University emailed its supporters with a splashy announcement – a new “AI team member” in their development office named Ava.  

They gave Ava a face and said she will be the University’s first “fully-autonomous virtual engagement officer.”  

They wrote that “Ava represents our commitment and desire to connect with our community both broadly and personally.” 

The email announcement and accompanying press release positioned Ava as a major gift officer who could connect with donors and build personal relationships. It was framed as a tech-savvy move to provide better service to Cleveland State supporters.  

As someone who has spent my entire career in fundraising and tech – I think it’s clear that someone is getting duped here. And it’s either the university (bad) or the donors (worse). 

Because there are really only two options that I see here. Either…

1. It’s just a chatbot.
Or,
2. They actually believe it’s a gift officer. 

And either way, they’ve got a problem. 

 

If it’s just a chatbot…

Let’s be clear: there is nothing wrong with using an AI chatbot to answer questions about a university. In fact, it could be quite helpful — for prospective students, alumni trying to find the homecoming schedule, or a donor who wants to know if their employer offers matching gifts.  

But calling it a “fully autonomous engagement officer?” That’s either a massive marketing misstep or a stunning act of premiumization — the software version of selling artisanal ice or designer firewood. 

Because this isn’t a gift officer. It’s a digital FAQ page with a face. 

That’s the real offense here — not the tech itself, but the disingenuous framing. Someone paid a premium for a rebranded chatbot, and announced it with the same fanfare you’d see when a school announces a new VP hire. Except… Ava isn’t an officer. Ava doesn’t build portfolios. Ava the chatbot doesn’t listen to a donor and get to know him or her over months or years. Ava doesn’t do cultivation visits, check-in calls, donor stewardship, or (I pray) solicitations. Ava doesn’t even send handwritten notes (because while Ava has a face, she has no hands).  

If this is just clever pricing by a software company –  a really smart chatbot sold at a major gift officer’s salary — then I suppose the worst thing that happened is someone got duped.  And that’s not a huge deal. Colleges and universities overpay for software all the time. It just usually happens in private – they don’t build a whole announcement around it.  

And if Ava is just a chatbot (even a super smart one), this whole communications strategy is a huge whiff. The university took what is probably a very useful tool for their website and framed it in a way manages to alienate their entire donor base and the fundraising team that serves them. With this very public announcement they’re telling donors, “We’d rather you talk to a robot than a human before you give us money.”  

It’s just an insane roll-out for a chatbot. Even if it IS the best chatbot that has ever been built. 

 

But if they really mean it…

If Cleveland State honestly believes Ava is their first “fully autonomous engagement officer” — not a tool, not a chatbot, but a digital colleague who “represents our commitment and desire to connect with our community both broadly and personally”– then we’re in even more dangerous territory. 

Let’s start with what this says to donors: “You’re not important enough to talk to a real person.” That’s a tough message for any donor to swallow, but it is particularly tone-deaf when considering the kind of supporters who donate generously to our colleges and universities.  

Philanthropy, at this level, is relational — not transactional. It’s built on trust, shared vision, conversation, nuance, and time. And here’s the wild part: the university knows that. That’s why they have real human gift officers. 

This isn’t to say AI doesn’t have a place in fundraising — it absolutely does. Just not here. Not as a donor-facing, relationship-owning entity masquerading as a person with a face and a name.  

And here’s the rub. I think nonprofits should be using AI. They should be using AI to help clean their databases. They should be using AI to help draft personalized acknowledgment letters or optimize travel plans for their human gift officers. They should be using AI to help them create stunning charts and graphs for the annual report. But nonprofits should NOT be mistaking a tool for a teammate. 

You have a weather app on your phone. But you wouldn’t call it a meteorologist. 

Relationships aren’t built in a chat window. They’re built in moments — over coffee, campus visits, and phone calls. They’re built when a gift officer remembers a donor’s freshman year dormitory, asks about their grandkids, or shares a link to university research in an area that the donor cares about.  That’s not something AI can replicate — certainly not yet, and maybe not ever. 

And even if Ava is smart enough to sound human in a conversation, that opens up a whole new can of worms. What happens when a donor tries to call her back? Or includes Ava in their estate plan? Or looks her up on the staff page? At best, the donor will feel silly. At worst, they will feel deceived. How do either of those emotions help Cleveland State?  

Let’s be honest: if Cleveland State had announced this tool as “a digital research assistant designed to give our human officers more time to build relationships,” they would have had my full support. But they didn’t. They anthropomorphized the bot. They gave it a name, a title, and a job it cannot do. And they rolled it out with such fanfare that it’s certain to alienate their existing development team and their donors.  

 

Final Thoughts 

There’s a story here, and it’s not really about Cleveland State. It’s about the growing gap between what’s possible with AI and what’s appropriate. It’s about the temptation to use tech for headlines instead of impact. And it’s about remembering that tools don’t build relationships — people do. 

We should embrace AI. But let’s not be deluded about what it is — and what it isn’t. 

 

Article by Nic Prenger, J.D.
Founder/CEO

Nic Prenger formed Prenger Solutions Group with a vision to help nonprofits use technology to raise more money with fewer headaches. PSG has since grown to become one of the most innovative and sought-after fundraising firms in the United States, with a thriving consulting practice and hit software products like AskGenius, AutomateGenius and the Catholic Social Media platform.