Interpreting Donor Messages for Fundraising Professionals

I completely misread a major donor's signals and lost a six-figure gift. It was humbling. And it transformed my approach to donor relationships. Here's what happened: After multiple positive meetings, I was confident our capital campaign proposal aligned perfectly with this donor's interests. The signals seemed clear—enthusiastic questions, facility tour requests, introduction to family members. I prepared an impressive proposal with all the recognition bells and whistles. I was already mentally spending the gift. When I made the ask, his response was immediate: "This isn't what I care about at all." He wasn't interested in naming opportunities or recognition. He wanted to fund scholarships for students like himself—first-generation college students from rural communities. The proposal I'd spent weeks crafting completely missed his core motivation. What I learned: - Enthusiasm doesn't always signal alignment - Assumptions are fundraising poison - Direct questions about motivations beat clever interpretation - Donors give from personal values, not organizational priorities I now ask every donor: "What aspect of our work matters most to you personally, and why?" The answer has never led me astray since. Share a valuable lesson from a fundraising misstep! 💡 If this resonated with you, join thousands of fundraisers who are sharing what works and what doesn't inside the Donor Participation Project. Join us here 👇 shorturl.at/qhMHM

I once watched a major gift officer spend ninety minutes in a couple's living room and barely mention the organization he represented. He asked about their lives. Their careers. Their family. What kept them up at night. What gave them hope. The conversation wandered through one donor's childhood – growing up poor in rural Appalachia, a teacher who changed her trajectory by believing in her when no one else did. She talked about education with the kind of passion that only comes from lived experience. He didn't learn any of this from a wealth screening report or a donor database. He learned it by listening. Six months later, she made a transformational gift to fund scholarships for first-generation college students from rural communities. The ask wasn't hard. He simply invited her to do what she already wanted to do – in a way that aligned with what he'd learned about her values. That's what listening does. It creates the foundation for everything else. In the immortal words of Jerry Panas, "The true art of asking lies in listening." I've been in this work for more than thirty-five years. And over those decades, one pattern has become unmistakable: the major gift officers who consistently produce results – not one-time wins, but sustained, long-term generosity – share a common set of instincts. Chief among them is this: they lead with questions, not asks. But here's the uncomfortable truth. Most of our fundraising systems are designed to do the opposite. We assume we know what donors care about and broadcast it back to them through one-way messaging. We build systems for efficiency and scale – not for listening. And donors can tell. They know when they're being heard and when they're being sold. The difference is visceral. When you listen, donors lean in. When you talk at them, they pull away. This isn't just good fundraising technique. It's the donor's return on investment. When people ask "what's in it for the donor?" – this is part of the answer. The feeling of being valued. Of mattering. Of genuine connection. For many donors, that experience is as meaningful as the impact their gift creates. Listening is one of a fundraiser's most important skills. It's one of what I refer to as the Seven Behaviors – disciplines that define exceptional major gift work and that I believe must become the foundation of all fundraising. Not just for the top one percent. For every donor. These seven behaviors are at the heart of my upcoming book, 𝗔 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲: 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿. The book argues that the technology now exists to operationalize these seven behaviors at scale, and that the future belongs to organizations that commit to extend these behaviors across their donor base and begin treating every donor with the dignity and respect they deserve – or, to put it simply, to treat every donor like a major donor. More to come... #aBetterWay

Your major donor just called and listed out all of their frustrations. You won't like what they had to say. It wasn't about money. It wasn't about competing priorities. It wasn't about the economy. It was about you. "They never told me what my gift accomplished," they said. "I gave $25,000 and got a form letter thank you. Then nothing for eight months." "When I finally called to ask about impact, they couldn't give me specifics. Just vague statements about 'helping the community.'" "I realized they didn't see me as a partner. They saw me as an ATM." ‼️ The organizations losing major donors aren't victims of donor fatigue. They're victims of donor neglect. ‼️ Your major donors don't leave because they can't afford to give. They leave because you can't afford to care. Pull up your major donor communications from the last year. For each donor over $10,000, ask: 👉 Did they receive specific impact reports tied to their gift? 👉 Did someone call them personally within 3-5 days? 👉 Did they get invited to see their impact firsthand? 👉 Did you ask for their input on organizational direction? If you answered "no" to any of these, you've got a problem. The most successful major donor programs I work with treat donors like investors, not transactions: 👉 They provide quarterly impact reports with specific outcomes. 👉 They invite donors to strategic planning conversations. 👉 They offer behind-the-scenes access to programs and leadership. 👉 They ask for advice, not just money. Your major donors aren't leaving because they don't care about your mission. They're leaving because you don't care about them. Fix your relationship problem before you blame donor capacity. Because in fundraising, how you treat donors after they give determines whether they'll give again.

Older donors respond to direct mail and younger donors respond to digital. I wish it was that simple… For years, fundraising strategy has leaned on that simple assumption, but the data actually tells a more nuanced story. We talk about Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z as if each group behaves in a predictable way. And while there is some truth in those patterns, donor behavior is becoming more blended. For example, a younger donor will respond to a very traditional story if the mission feels personal. An older donor may be perfectly comfortable giving online when the experience is simple and trustworthy. What we’ve learned from raising over $400M for clients last year is that, the better way to think about generations is as different trust profiles. Every donor is asking a version of the same question: Do I believe in this mission, do I trust this organization, and do I feel my gift will matter? That will drive your channel strategy. Instead of asking, "What generation is this donor in?" the better question becomes, "What behavior is this donor showing us, and what is the next best action we should take?" And with Donor counts under pressure, rising costs, and fragmented attention, treating generations too simplistically will cause over investment in the wrong channels, an underinvestment in retention, and miss the signals that show which donors are ready to renew, upgrade, lapse, or reactivate. My advice is to stop building strategy around generational stereotypes and start building it around donor behaviors you can identify in your data. Make every channel build on and reinforce your mission. Heavily use advanced predictive analytics to sharpen decisions. And keep the message human, because the reason people give is still deeply personal. The best fundraising connects donor intelligence with empathy.

The Top 4 Motivations for Giving and the Peril of Ignoring, Misinterpreting or Underestimating Them Survey after survey we see the same, and have for years. We ask donors why they give to various organizations and they say, ⏺ I have a personal connection ⏺ It speaks to what is important to me ⏺ There is a clear need ⏺ I can see the impact Yet how many organizations attempt to fundraise without attempting to explore if a personal connection exists based on good deeds done previously or attempt to build a personal connection before soliciting? How many organizations take the time to listen to current and potential donors to discover who or what about their organization or their communication speaks most compellingly to each without realizing there are significant variations in each donor and prospect community? How many organizations, when they hear donors talk about a "clear need" or "the greatest need," interpret it as donor's willingness to respond to the organization's greatest need not that of those they serve? There is no doubt that donors are looking for the clear need in society not that of the organization. They assume, as well they should, that if the societal need is served so will be the organization's budgetary need. How many organizations fail to address current impact in their appeals for additional support? How many just claim to have an impact but provide little or no compelling evidence of it? How many organizations miss the operative word "see" in that statement and default to telling not showing thereby failing to provide the means, real or virtual, for donors to see for themselves? The less energy an organization devotes to creating the conditions that will motivate donors, the more it wastes of fundraising, predisposes itself to high rates of donors attrition, and handcuffs its advancement team. Donor motivations are the philanthropic horse that all too often get put behind the fundraising cart.

End-of-week reflection for development professionals: The most successful fundraisers I've worked with don't just track dollars raised—they measure relationship momentum. Here's a simple Friday practice that transformed an approach to major gifts: Every Friday, review your donor interactions using the "3R Framework": • RESPONSE: Which messages resonated most strongly this week? • RESISTANCE: What objections or hesitations did I encounter? • REVELATION: What new donor insight surprised me? This 15-minute exercise has helped identify patterns that were missing and helps adjust approaches in real-time. One organization I worked with implemented this weekly practice across their team and saw a 28% increase in second meetings and a 17% faster cultivation cycle. What end-of-week reflection practices keep you growing as a fundraiser?

When we speak to older donors about why they give (or don't give), one of the most worrying emotions we uncover is a sense of learned hopelessness - particularly when it comes to medical causes. "There have been so many false dawns - so many promises - I've given up hoping – it's too late for me." To help illustrate this, I've gone back through the advertising archives to show how for 125 years, fundraising advertising for cancer research was driven by the same promise - one day science will cure cancer. Then in 2023, Cancer Research UK did something different. Instead of promising future breakthroughs, they showed patients and researchers celebrating them RIGHT NOW. The result? A huge jump in legacy income. Are they related? I'd love to know more about the campaign. I don't work with CRUK. But to my mind, this is what happens when you understand donor psychology. From speaking with donors, here's what I think CRUK got right... – They didn't just show suffering – They showed success – They didn't ask for sympathy – They invited collective action – They didn't promise "one day". They said "today" And they weren't afraid of asking. The fact is no campaign – no brand – can ever land clean. When you start at a charity, you inherit decades of promises made by people who are long gone. You can rebrand all you want – new logo, fresh colours, modern fonts – but you can't escape the impact of generations of personal experience and appeal messages. CRUK acknowledged that history. And changed the narrative within it. From "one day" to "today." From promise to proof. From hopelessness to hope. Three things to learn from this... 1. Your long-term donors might not give because they don't care – they may have heard the same promise for decades and stopped believing it. 2. Brand agencies tend to think emotion = sympathy. But hope, pride, and collective efficacy are more powerful for sustained giving. 3. Stop separating "brand campaigns" from "fundraising campaigns." They're the same thing and should be doing the same job. This is what integration actually looks like. It's understanding why people give and what the barriers are - they are both important. If you want to find out more, there a detailed analysis in the comments where I look at advertising going back to 1899, focus on why we have to consider the power of collective action, consider why no campaign ever lands clean and share a number of lessons - for any charity on any budget. #Fundraising #DonorPsychology #charityBranding

The Most Overlooked Fundraising Skill It’s not persuasion. It’s not storytelling. It’s not even the perfect pitch deck. == It’s LISTENING. The best fundraisers I know talk less in donor meetings. They focus on asking thoughtful questions… and then staying silent long enough for the real answers to surface. Silence can feel uncomfortable but it’s in those pauses that donors reveal what truly matters to them. = When you really listen, you hear more than words. = You understand their values, motivations, and priorities. = You learn the stories that shape how they give. And here’s the magic: ==The more you understand what moves a donor, the less you have to “sell” and the more they want to invest. Fundraising isn’t about convincing someone to care. It’s about discovering what they already care about and showing them how your work aligns with it. So, next time you’re in a donor meeting, try this: ==Ask one powerful question. ==Listen without interrupting. ==Let silence do its work. You might be surprised how much your fundraising outcomes change when you speak less… and listen more.

A homeless shelter sends out two fundraising letters. Letter A says: "Your $100 donation provides emergency shelter and meals for someone experiencing homelessness. We serve over 500 people each month who desperately need a warm bed and hot food tonight. The crisis is growing. Please help…" Letter B says: "Your $100 donation helps people like James rebuild their lives. James used our job training program to earn his commercial driver’s license. Within 6 months, he went from sleeping in his car to driving for a local trucking company. Today, he has his own apartment and sends us a holiday card every year…" Which letter gave you more of a gut-level urge to give? Which letter do you think raised more money? If you said Letter B, you’re not alone. And you’d be right. But what’s most surprising is just how much more effective this shift in messaging was: 💰 3x more donors pulled out their wallets. 💰 The average gift jumped from $75 to $134. 💰 Total donations skyrocketed by 400% (!) This insight comes from groundbreaking research from Jonathan Hasford and his team, who call this the “autonomous aid effect.” They discovered that focusing on independence and long-term transformation—not just immediate needs—compels more people to give and give generously. Because when donors give, they want their money to create lasting change—not just put a band-aid on the problem. They’re moved by transformation, not just urgency. So, how can you apply this to your nonprofit’s messaging today? 🚫 Instead of: "Your donation feeds hungry families" ✅ Try: "Your donation helps families grow their own food through our community garden program." 🚫 Instead of: "Help us provide school supplies to children in need" ✅ Try: "Help students like Maria get the tools she needs to become the first in her family to graduate." 🚫 Instead of: "Support our job training program" ✅ Try: "Help determined people learn the skills they need to never need our help again." One homeless shelter in the study recreated their website, emails, and social media around this principle. Their donations have climbed year after year. Now, ask yourself: ❓ Does your website inspire donors to create lasting change—or just solve an immediate crisis? ❓Do your latest fundraising appeal emphasize immediate needs or independence? Crisis or transformation? Dependence or empowerment? This one messaging tweak can transform how donors see your organization—and how much they give. If you’re not 100% sure your messaging is doing this, it may be time to rethink it. P.S. If you want help revamping your messaging to inspire lasting change—and bigger donations—let’s talk. ___ 📌 This is the last of a series of 5 posts for nonprofits and nonprofit marketers about fundraising messaging hacks to kickoff the new year. Comment ME if you'd like me to send you the links to all five posts!

Subject line: Think and reread before you hit "send" Dear Nonprofit- I have a lot of things going on in my life. Helping my kids, aging parents, trying to build a business and put bread on the table, friends going thru some horrible things and much more. Even with all that, I want to do good in this world. I want to make my community a better place. When you open a fundraising email telling me that you haven't hit your internal fundraising dollar goal and the language you use makes it seem like you're blaming me, that kinda rubs me the wrong way. In fact, it makes me way less likely to even consider donating. Sadly, it's not just you. I read thousands of fundraising emails each year from wonderful nonprofits doing their best to impact as many people who need assistance. But it happens again and again: The language you use makes it seem like you're standing in front of me, hand held out, tapping your foot, other hand on your hip, waiting for me to donate. It's a mistake. This is NOT how you build relationships with people. And it certainly won't raise you the money you desperately need to hit your goal. Talk impact. Share a problem and how I can solve it. Tell the story of one. Share the emotions and make me feel like I not only want to solve this problem but I CAN. But hitting me over the head for not giving... making me feel guilty that you haven't hit your arbitrary fundraising goal... causing me to feel like a bad person because I have yet to donate? Not good. I wish you much success with your campaign. I hope you don't lose too many donors along the way who feel like I do. The work you do is needed. I strongly suggest you use language that allows more people to WANT to join in partnering with you rather than pushing them away. Sincerely, Ephraim