This month’s questions? Two sides of the same dysfunctional coin.

From a Board Member:
“I’m on the board of a nonprofit, and the Executive Director seems to only want us to fundraise or approve budgets. I have so much more I could offer. How can I be a better partner without overstepping?”

From an Executive Director:
“My board is full of smart, successful people, but they get stuck in operational details instead of focusing on governance and fundraising. How can I help them embrace their proper role?”

Let’s Be Honest: This Isn’t About Capability

It’s about control. And confusion.

Board members feel underused, so they insert themselves where they can. Executive directors feel second-guessed, so they pull the reins tighter. And around and around we go.

Meanwhile, the mission — the whole reason you’re all there — gets lost somewhere in the middle.

Sound familiar?

Board Members: You’re Not There to Run the Place

Yes, you likely could improve operations. That’s not the point.

Your role is governance, strategy, and yes — fundraising. Not because it’s convenient for the organization, but because your voice carries weight in ways staff never will.

If you want to contribute more, start by asking — not assuming:

• “Where do you actually need me?”

• “What would move the needle most right now?”

And let’s not forget genuinely asking: “How can I help?”

And then — here’s the hard part — stay in your lane once it’s defined.

Showing up with “I could fix this” energy rarely lands the way you think it does. Showing up as a strategic partner? That’s where the magic happens.

Executive Directors: If You Don’t Define the Role, Someone Else Will

If your board is in the weeds, it’s not because they’re bored. It’s because you haven’t given them a better place to focus.

You can’t say “stay out of operations” and then give them nothing meaningful to do besides approve budgets twice a year and write checks.

That’s not a board. That’s a transaction.

If you want engaged, high-functioning board members, you need to:

• clearly define expectations

• actively direct their energy

• and actually invite them into strategic conversations

Otherwise, don’t be surprised when they start rewriting your playbook.

The Bigger Problem No One Talks About

Too many nonprofits treat boards like either:

1. wallets, or

2. problems to manage

They’re neither.

A great board is a strategic asset — but only if you treat it like one.

And yes, that requires more communication. More clarity. More honesty. (All things this sector tends to avoid.)

The Bottom Line

Board members: stop trying to run the organization.
Executive directors: stop keeping your board at arm’s length.

Both of you: start acting like you’re on the same team.

Because when you are, fundraising gets easier, strategy gets sharper, and the organization actually moves forward.

And isn’t that the point?

See you in the next edition of Burning Questions.

Share

Inspired by Fahrenheit 451, the classic novel about a world where books are burned to suppress ideas, Philanthropy 451 is about igniting the opposite — sparking bold conversations in a field that too often avoids them. Philanthropy shouldn’t be on fire for the wrong reasons; it should be burning with curiosity, honesty, and change. This newsletter is a place to challenge assumptions, question outdated norms, and reimagine what giving can be when we’re not afraid to turn up the heat.

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

Instead, I get emails from “Advancement.”
Or “External Relations.”
Or my personal favorite, “Strategic Partnerships.”

Spoiler alert: All of those and many others can be code for “fundraiser”.

When I first started my charitable giving, I would see someone’s title saying “advancement” or “development” and think: Oh, this might be a different kind of conversation (i.e. not an “ask”).

And then, a few minutes in, it becomes clear that I’m speaking to someone who wants me to give them money.

Most of my readers know that I have two (or at least two) identities in the social sector. My experience in the sector started as a donor – and often as a major donor. But for over a decade I have worked on the fundraiser side as well as a nonprofit board member, consultant, author, and for the last two years, as a doctoral student at the Lilly School.

As a donor, I know that fundraising is the lifeblood of every nonprofit. But when a fundraiser seems to be using language that feels like it’s being chosen to confuse or “trick” me, it’s off-putting and annoying.

As fundraisers, when we change the language to soften or disguise the ask, we don’t build trust, we erode it.

To make my point, here’s a modern glossary of terms many fundraisers use that often confuse donors – whether intentionally or not. With over 70% of people of wealth in the U.S. being first-generation wealthy, it’s likely that most of them have little or no experience with giving protocols.

Here are some examples:

Planned gift

A fundraiser might be looking for a legacy gift or “planned gift” but most donors – especially those new to giving – won’t understand that you’re talking about something that likely involves dying. Why? “Planned gift”, to the uninitiated, can be interpreted as “a donation I plan to give.”

Annual gift

For whatever reason, the fundraising world seems to assume that if somebody makes a donation, they are likely to intend to give the following year.

But for new and/or everyday donors, there’s no “rulebook” on how to give, so how would a new donor know that their initial donation created the expectation that they would renew their gift a year later? As far as I’ve seen, fundraisers don’t often explain that an initial donation is actually an annual subscription (and isn’t it okay for a donor to give based on need, rather than the calendar?).

Ever wonder why so many first-time donors don’t give again the second year? This is part of the answer.

Support

“Support” can be a vague term. If a donor is told by a fundraiser that they are looking for support, the donor might think that they’re being asked for myriad forms of support – not only money. In fact, many of today’s donors, in line with the sense of purpose they are looking for, want to be involved in the organization via non-financial means. For example, research shows that younger donors are likely to “check out” a non-profit by volunteering before they ever identify themselves as a potential donor, and that person, if asked, might have identified that volunteer time as “support”. Others may see “support” as introducing the organization to others, offering their home for an event, or referring a reputable accountant or attorney.

Most people, in fact, with financial capacity would love to be thought of as a human being beyond their net worth. So if your sole pitch is to encourage a donor to give you money, you might want to change your wording from “support” to “financial support.”

A Final Thought

Language matters more than we think.

Not because donors aren’t intelligent, but many of them aren’t familiar with the “inside baseball” words and phrases that are used by fundraisers. Because of this, a simple conversation and “ask” can result in confusion, leading a donor to believe that charitable giving isn’t for them. As a sector, we can’t afford to let that happen.

It would be unusual for a new donor to ask a fundraiser what “development” means or “support” means. People don’t like to feel ignorant, but they also will likely not be comfortable asking a fundraiser they just met to explain why they seem to be having two different conversations. Without a clarifying conversation, there’s little chance that the donor will trust the fundraiser – or even the nonprofit – because the language they’re using is mysterious. The donor might think, “Are they using those words purposely to confuse me?” or “Is this some sort of a con?”

If the fundraiser uses that “in-crowd” terminology and doesn’t notice the donor might not be on the same page as they are, there’s little chance that an authentic relationship can develop. And if the fundraiser doesn’t notice the donor’s confusion, and keeps talking at them anyway, the fundraiser isn’t truly listening and is probably fine with getting a “nuisance” gift from the donor (which will never be repeated).

Without being fully aware of and listening to the donor (i.e. you’re getting a blank stare or they’re squirming in their chair), there’s no way a meaningful relationship can develop.

And in today’s philanthropic landscape, trust is everything.

In sum, if we want stronger, lasting relationships with donors – especially the next generation – we don’t need more creative jargon or cryptic conversations.

We need more clarity, more honesty, more active listening, and more respect for the people we’re asking to invest in our work.

Share

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Subscribe now

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

At the same time, I hear one common frustration from new, often younger donors, who ask: “Why does everything feel so stuck in the past?”

Both sides are talking. Neither feels heard. Meanwhile, an enormous transfer of wealth — an estimated $124 trillion passing from Baby Boomers to younger generations over the next two decades — is quietly underway.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, and both sides are looking for answers.

A fundraiser asks: “Our organization is trying to engage younger donors, but they seem to ignore our letters and emails. We tried a social media campaign, but it didn’t raise much money. How do we connect with the next generation of givers when they seem to have completely different rules of engagement?” Do they just not care?

I hear this a lot, and I want to offer a reframe. The problem isn’t how you distribute your communications — it’s your message and your mindset.

Younger donors might not be ignoring you because they don’t care about your cause. They may be ignoring you because your outreach isn’t resonating – and because it often feels designed for a different audience. The annual appeal letter written in formal, institutional language. The gala invitation with a black-tie dress code. The social media post that’s really just a repurposed press release. None of those communications show that the organization sees that donor as an individual human being.

And as for your social media campaign — here is the truth that most people in our sector don’t want to hear: social media raises awareness, not dollars. At least not at first. Stop measuring it by immediate revenue and start measuring it by the quality of the relationships it helps you build. Donors will notice if your communications are trying to score a “quick buck”, or if they’re trying to build authentic, long-term relationships.

On the other side of the coin, a wealthy millennial asks: “I’ve started to get involved in my family’s philanthropy, and the way they do things — formal lunches, long-term pledges, naming buildings — feels outdated to me. I want to be more hands-on and see a faster impact. Why are nonprofits so slow to adapt?”

This new donor’s frustration is completely valid. The formal cultivation lunch(es), the awkward power dynamics and overly deferential behavior that traditional donor cultivation can create, and the assumption that donors want a building with their family’s name on it — these rituals were designed for a specific era and a specific kind of donor relationship. One built on deference, distance, and assumptions about the donor. This may still work on some donors, but most of today’s donors – and prospective donors – see things very differently.

Today’s donors want to understand where their money is going, and not only by reading a snail-mailed annual report. They want to feel connected to the people the organization serves, and they want to see real change in a timeframe that feels meaningful. Don’t minimize that difference. It’s not impatience. It’s actually a more sophisticated and human approach to giving than the norm of yesteryear.

It’s important to note that nonprofits aren’t slow to adapt because they don’t care. Many are under-resourced, operating on thin margins, and accountable to boards and longtime major donors who still respond to the old model. Change is genuinely hard when the lights need to stay on. It’s not an excuse — it’s a reality worth understanding.

Become a partner in this change.

The most powerful thing that a next-generation donor can do is to bring their full self to the relationship — their ideas, their network, their energy — not just their money. New donors should ask for a meeting with organizational leadership, and leadership should readily make that happen. Not a cultivation lunch, but a real working conversation. Listen to what that donor tells you about what meaningful engagement looks like for them. Ask them what challenges they’re facing that your skills or connections might help solve – and maybe that includes offering them help navigating and deciphering this world of philanthropy.

Nonprofits that are genuinely mission-driven will welcome a donor who wants to roll up their sleeves, so don’t raise your eyebrows when they ask to volunteer.

So, what actually works? Listening. Learning from each other. Showing the donor your passion for the cause you’re working for and working together to create a true win-win.

One way of doing this is to invite new donors and prospects into a real exchange. Host a small, informal briefing — ten people, your Executive Director and maybe a board member -- into an honest conversation about your work, your challenges, and the impact you provide and hope to provide. Offer a behind-the-scenes site visit. Set up a 30-minute virtual Q&A where they can ask anything. Give them access and authenticity, not a polished sales pitch. (Note that these can all be done online if you’d like. Minimal resources needed.)

Better yet, ask a next-generation donor to help you design your next young donor engagement event. The act of being genuinely consulted is itself a powerful form of connection. It says: we see you as a partner, not a prospect.

Stop trying to convert younger donors into versions of the donors you already know. Start asking who they are, what they care about, and what kind of relationship with your organization would feel meaningful to them. Then build that.

Here is what strikes me about these two questions I began this newsletter with. Both the donor and the fundraiser are describing the exact same problem, but from opposite sides of the table. The millennial donor wants to be seen as more than an ATM. The fundraiser wants to help their organization by connecting with prospects who are looking for purpose and, perhaps, a community. Both are longing for the same thing — a real, human connection built around shared values.

The old model of philanthropy was designed around the organization’s needs. Today’s model can only succeed long-term if it aligns the organization’s needs with the donor’s values. That shift isn’t just about engaging millennials. It’s about the future of giving.

See you in the next Burning Questions edition.

Share

Inspired by Fahrenheit 451, the classic novel about a world where books are burned to suppress ideas, Philanthropy 451 is about igniting the opposite — sparking bold conversations in a field that too often avoids them. Philanthropy shouldn’t be on fire for the wrong reasons; it should be burning with curiosity, honesty, and change. This newsletter is a place to challenge assumptions, question outdated norms, and reimagine what giving can be when we’re not afraid to turn up the heat.

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

But what happens when the crises don’t stop?

Both fundraisers and donors are feeling a deep sense of “crisis fatigue.” The emergency-based fundraising playbook that we’ve all been trained to use is starting to fray. Donors are overwhelmed, and development professionals are burning out trying to make their cause the loudest in a room full of shouting.

So, what do we do now? This month’s questions tackle this shared challenge head-on.

Your development staff asks: “After years of one ‘unprecedented event’ after another, our donors are exhausted. We’re exhausted. We keep sending out urgent appeals, but it feels like we’re just shouting into a void. How do we get heard when everyone seems to be asking for help?”

Your exhaustion is real, and it’s a sign that the old strategy is no longer working. When every organization defaults to a five-alarm-fire level of urgency, it all just becomes noise. Donors become numb to it, annoyed or even angry, and fundraisers feel demoralized.

The answer isn’t to shout louder. It’s to whisper to the right people.

In times of overwhelming noise, the most powerful thing you can do is to get personal and relevant. This is the moment to shift from broadcasting to narrowcasting. Instead of another mass email with a red “URGENT” banner, turn your focus to three often overlooked groups:

• your loyal donors

• your loyal volunteers and supporters

• people interested in your cause who’ve been overlooked because they don’t match your standard donor prospect profile

Your first move shouldn’t be an ask. It should be a gift. Send your most steadfast supporters a simple, heartfelt update that does nothing but show them the impact of their past generosity. If they want to donate, make it easy for them to do so, but your messaging should be clearly focused on your gratitude and your update. Remind them that even in a chaotic world, their support is a source of positivity, stability and gratitude. It’s your job to make them feel seen and valued.

When you do need to ask, reframe your language. Acknowledge the climate. Instead of, “We need your URGENT help now!” try something that connects with how they’re feeling: “In a world full of noise, we wanted to share something that gives us hope… and show you how you can be a part of it.”

This is the time to double down on stewardship. Pick up the phone and call five loyal donors this week simply to thank them. An authentic, two-minute conversation will do more to secure their long-term support than a hundred generic email blasts.

Some of your board members aren’t so sure about this approach, and ask: “This feels so low-key, I’m afraid we won’t bring in the money we need. What else can we do in this climate to respect our donors but also bring in the funds we need to run our organization?”

This is the critical second-half of the equation. Our role as non-profit professionals should not be focused on separating our donors from the world’s stress, but our role can be to help them find meaning and purpose in an anxiety-producing world. Inviting them to be a trusted partner in helping us address our mission can help them calm the noise while also meeting your revenue goals.

The key is to show your donors how their support of your organization can give them not only a distraction, but also a sense of control and peace. And the single most effective tool for this is monthly giving.

Recurring monthly gifts are the ultimate antidote to crisis fatigue for a donor. A monthly donation is a calm, intentional, and sustainable act. It allows a donor to say, “This is a cause I believe in, and I am going to support it consistently, regardless of the crisis of the day.” It turns their giving from a reactive, emotional decision into a proactive, deeply held value.

Frame your monthly giving program this way. Position it not only as a convenience for the organization, but also as an additional path for the donor to achieve a more balanced, meaningful and impactful philanthropic life.

You can also care for them by offering ways to engage that don’t involve their wallet. Are they burned out on giving? Fine. Invite them to a 20-minute virtual briefing on a program they care about. Ask them to share a social media post that made them proud. Send them a one-question survey: What will give you confidence that your support in us was well placed? (Thanks TJ McGovern for this survey question!)

Give them a way to connect that reinforces your shared values, not just their capacity to give.

The path to being heard and the path to caring for your donors are the same. Both are paved with authentic, human-to-human relationships. In times of constant uncertainty, people crave connection, stability, and the knowledge that they can still make a tangible difference. Trust, not urgency, is your most valuable and sustainable asset.

See you in the next Burning Questions edition.

Share

As a 451 Reader, you’re invited to join AI Practice Session: Major Gifts with WIZE!

Want to learn more about one of the most relationship-driven — and time-intensive — areas of fundraising: major gifts?

Major gifts work lives on preparation, personalization, and trust, but most fundraisers don’t have enough time for all three. This session explores how AI can support major gift officers behind the scenes so they can show up more present, informed, and human in donor conversations.

Register here: https://shorturl.at/ypu52

Inspired by Fahrenheit 451, the classic novel about a world where books are burned to suppress ideas, Philanthropy 451 is about igniting the opposite — sparking bold conversations in a field that too often avoids them. Philanthropy shouldn’t be on fire for the wrong reasons; it should be burning with curiosity, honesty, and change. This newsletter is a place to challenge assumptions, question outdated norms, and reimagine what giving can be when we’re not afraid to turn up the heat.

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

More reminders.
More urgency.
More asks.

And yes—if you keep sending emails, eventually someone will give.

But here’s what we don’t talk about enough: what this feels like on the donor side.

A donor may start out interested. Supportive. Maybe even excited. Then the solicitations keep coming. Slowly, your organization’s name starts to trigger a feeling—not of purpose, but of pressure.

Once that happens, it’s very hard to undo.

Most donors don’t rage-quit. They quietly delete. Unsubscribe. Or mentally tune you out. Some tell friends. Some just disappear.

And once they’re gone, they’re usually gone for good.

We already know the numbers. Only about one of every five new donors will give again the following year. That’s a number that’s been consistent for years—and it’s a problem. A problem that you might never get out of.

And here’s the thing – it’s not a “too many emails” problem, It’s a relationship problem.

When people give, they’re not just giving money. They’re expressing trust. Belief. Alignment.

Think about your own inbox. You have likely felt the moment when an organization crosses the line from “I care about this” to “please stop emailing me and go away.”

This almost never happens due to just a few messages. It happens because of accumulation. Because it starts to feel transactional. Once an organization’s name becomes associated with pressure instead of purpose, that feeling doesn’t go away.

Why don’t more organizations ask their donors how they actually feel about the frequency of the asks? Because asking takes time, intention, and humility.

Incessant asks might bring in some money in the short-term, but it does nothing to make a donor want to continue to support you.

So why do we then act surprised when we focus on quick wins? An 80% churn rate makes no sense if you want long-term sustainability or growth.

Donors want relationships. They want their giving to be purposeful. They want to understand the impact that their donation made. They want to know that their gift achieved something good. Authentic relationships provide that.

But in the real world, when every email has to “pay for itself,” relationship-building is the first thing to go.

It’s akin to “shooting yourself in the foot”, really.

Most successful organizations know that authentic donor relationships are the key to fundraising success. They share frequent, simple updates. They show exactly how funds are used. If someone gives to your organization, they deserve to know what their support made possible—without pressure attached. If the result of their giving was that your organization has a stronger operational foundation to be able to achieve and sustain your good work, then say so! That’s ROI, too.

And there’s another piece we don’t talk about enough: relationships aren’t just for major donors.

Most major donors didn’t start that way. They are often the ones who felt heard, seen, appreciated, and authentically connected to the nonprofits they supported. They’re the ones who can tell their friends and family how proud they are of the accomplishments of the nonprofits they gave to. They’re the ones who were looking for purpose, and who found it in a nonprofit that was in for the “long game”.

A receipt isn’t a relationship.
A tax acknowledgment isn’t stewardship.

So here’s the takeaway...

If you’re a nonprofit leader or fundraiser, take a hard look at your communication strategy and implementation.

Are your solicitations pushing prospective long-term donors away? Is your incessant asking for money negatively impacting your donors’ feelings about your organization? Are donors hearing from you only when you need something—or also when you have something meaningful to share?

Because when only one in four new donors keep giving, the issue isn’t generosity.

It’s how we’re treating the people who already said yes.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

(Why Burning Questions? Why Philanthropy 451? See bottom of the article for an explanation.)

Have a question for Lisa? Let us know - share it in the Substack comments below, email it to greer.team@lisagreer.com, or message Lisa on LinkedIn and your question may be featured in an upcoming column.

This Month’s Questions

This month, we’re diving into two big ones — questions that nearly every fundraiser wrestles with, whether they’ve been in the field for six months or 25 years.

Q1: How do I balance meeting fundraising goals with building genuine relationships?

Q2: What’s the best way to talk about money without making donors feel uncomfortable?

Let’s get right to it.

Q1: “How do I balance meeting fundraising goals with building genuine relationships?”

This is the nonprofit sector’s eternal tension, which we only experience when something about our strategy is misaligned.

Here’s the reality:
Fundraising goals and genuine donor relationships are not competing priorities. They fuel each other.

The problem arises when goals push fundraisers into transactional behaviors — more asks, quicker asks, templated messages — rather than long-term engagement. That’s when donors disengage, trust erodes, and meeting goals becomes even harder.

Here’s how to realign:

1. Shift the mindset: donors are partners, not targets.

When we treat donors like numbers on a dashboard, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy: they give once and don’t give again. Instead, when we treat donors like collaborators in our mission, retention rises and goals become far more achievable.

2. Prioritize meaningful touchpoints — not just “check-ins.”

A relationship isn’t built on updates that say nothing. It’s built on:

• Showing impact

• Asking for input and authentically listening to the answer

• Being transparent

• Sharing progress as well as challenges

• Celebrating wins together

These touches are how fundraising goals get met without harming trust.

3. Don’t assume relationships slow you down — they speed you up.

Organizations with high retention and high donor satisfaction often close gifts more quickly than those with low retention rates. Why? Because trust eliminates friction. Donors don’t have to “think about it” when you’ve already shown you value them.

4. Be honest about goals.

Donors know you have goals — hiding them creates distance, not closeness. Bring them into the process: “We’re trying to raise $200K this quarter (in order to ... fill in the blank*). Your support, at any level, genuinely helps us get there.”

Transparency strengthens relationships and inspires giving.

*The answer can’t be just to meet our numbers this quarter – it should be more specific about what that money will actually impact.

Q2: “What’s the best way to talk about money without making donors feel uncomfortable?”

Talking about money becomes uncomfortable only when the conversation is vague, pressured, or disconnected from the donor’s motivations, or when the fundraiser is just plain uncomfortable talking about money (a common problem, unfortunately).

The good news? There are simple, practical ways to make these conversations comfortable for everyone — including you.

1. Start with purpose, not dollars.

The fastest way to create discomfort in a donor conversation is to jump straight to the amount of money you want from them. Doing so can be jarring, off-putting, and can end the conversation right then and there.

Having said that, some donors specifically want to know the amount that you want from them right away, and if you have an authentic relationship with them, there’s nothing wrong with telling them the amount you’re asking for.

For donors that you don’t yet have a relationship with, anchor the conversation in the mission: “Here’s what we’re trying to solve, and here’s why it matters.” When the purpose is clear, the money discussion becomes a natural next step.

2. Use honest, donor-centered language.

Try replacing:
❌ “We need you to give.”
with
✔️ “Knowing your interest in (XYZ), we’d love to partner with you on this important work.”
or
✔️ “Would you like to hear more detail on this project, along with the opportunities and challenges related to it?”

Clarity + respect = comfort.

3. Ask permission before talking numbers.

A simple: “Can we talk about how you might want to support this?” allows donors to opt into the money conversation rather than be dragged into it.

4. Normalize the conversation.

Most donors with means are likely to be comfortable talking about money, especially if they have agreed to take a meeting with you. Any awkwardness in the conversation usually comes from the fundraiser, not the donor. When you approach your discussion with confidence and transparency as opposed to discomfort or fear, both you and the donor will likely relax and be able to have a comfortable conversation — without any awkwardness.

5. Always leave room for “no.”

If you feel passionate about your mission, and you think about your profession as bringing joy and purpose to people, you will engage the donor more deeply. In doing so, the donor will be more likely to hear your story and want to support your organization.

Even the most dedicated donors may have a moment – based on their personal or business life – when the time just isn’t right for them to make a financial commitment. In an authentic, long-term relationship between a donor and a fundraiser, a donor will feel they can say “no” without damaging your relationship.

Final Thought

Fundraising isn’t about scripts, tactics, or formulas. It’s about human connection, clarity, and trust. When you build real relationships and talk about money with honesty and ease, donors feel valued and stay committed to ongoing support of your nonprofit.

Which means:
Better experiences for fundraisers and donors.
More sustainable revenue for nonprofits.
And ultimately, more impact for the world.

See you in the next Burning Questions edition.

Share

Inspired by Fahrenheit 451, the classic novel about a world where books are burned to suppress ideas, Philanthropy 451 is about igniting the opposite — sparking bold conversations in a field that too often avoids them. Philanthropy shouldn’t be on fire for the wrong reasons; it should be burning with curiosity, honesty, and change. This newsletter is a place to challenge assumptions, question outdated norms, and reimagine what giving can be when we’re not afraid to turn up the heat.

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

Prior to arriving at the conference, I was a bit anxiety-ridden, as the idea of an academic conference felt a bit alien to me. I wasn’t sure what to expect. (Okay… I suspected it might be a little slow. I was wrong.) My academic friends — especially Elizabeth Searing, who deserves a major shout-out — gave me a helpful primer on “how these things work,” and soon enough I went from anxious to genuinely excited.

It turned out to be phenomenal. Meeting scholars whose research I’ve been reading for years — especially on fundraising — and having the chance to spar with them about issues we’re all passionate about? Energizing.

I learned so much that I didn’t want to keep it to myself. Below are some of the insights that stood out. I hope you find them as interesting as I did.

Mid-Level Donors: The “Black Sheep” of Fundraising?

One theme surfaced repeatedly: mid-level donors — however defined — often fall through the cracks. Small donors are typically seen as having limited impact, major donors get cultivated intensively, and mid-level donors? Many nonprofits consider them too unpredictable to develop as their own strategic category.

This “black sheep” dynamic came up explicitly in a few sessions and implicitly in many more.

The Elusive Definition of “Everyday Donors”

The phrase “everyday donors” is used constantly in our sector, yet I couldn’t find a single definition that people consistently agree on.

Important category. Fuzzy boundaries.

“Diversity Whiplash” Is Real

Another term I heard across multiple presentations was “Diversity Whiplash.”

It refers to organizations that rapidly adopted DEI initiatives in 2021 — some because they believed it was the right thing to do, others to align with donor expectations — only to roll them back just as quickly when the political and cultural climate shifted in 2024–2025.

Why the reversals?

• fear of government scrutiny?

• concerns about legal exposure?

• trying to keep up with what they felt donors wanted?

No one seemed entirely sure, but the whiplash itself is undeniable.

And the suggested antidote?
Diversify your revenue base.
(Which begs the question: shouldn’t we already be doing this?)

DAFs as a “Holding Tank”

As my regular readers know, I’m a huge fan of DAFs in general, and I’ve personally used them for over a decade. With the “diversity whiplash” issue, some donors, I learned, are temporarily parking their charitable dollars in DAFs “until the climate cools off.” This might make sense in the short term, but becomes problematic if it turns into a long-term strategy.

After all… who decides when the climate has “calmed down”?

“Leveraging Awe”: A Surprisingly Powerful Fundraising Tool

“Leveraging awe” was another term I heard repeatedly. It’s used in education, business, and marketing, and I think it’s applicable to fundraising. Various research suggests that leveraging awe can result in:

• enhanced cognition

• reduced stress

• improved executive function

• increased prosocial behavior

• sparked curiosity

• inspired learning

In the nonprofit sector, the best way to create and to leverage awe is to use the power of storytelling.

If you can’t tell a compelling story about your mission, successes, and challenges, now is the time to fix that. Two of my favorite guides to compelling storytelling are Esther Choy’s Let the Story Do the Work and Russell James’s The Storytelling Fundraiser.

990s, Watchdog Agencies, and Overhead

The IRS 990 made many appearances. I heard again that nonprofits often “adjust” their reporting — particularly overhead — to match donor expectations. This happens internationally, too.

Most watchdog agencies rely heavily (or entirely) on 990s when assigning ratings.
And when the underlying data is distorted, so are the ratings.

It’s a vicious cycle — one many of us know all too well.

Fiscal Sponsorship: A Black Box for Donors

I also wondered how organizations operating under fiscal sponsors are evaluated by donors.

Short answer: They usually aren’t.

Nonprofits using fiscal sponsors don’t have their activities or finances listed separately in 990s, and watchdog agencies don’t rate them independently. A donor could theoretically sift through the fiscal sponsor’s vast 990… but realistically, who’s doing that?

Fiscal sponsorships are an important tool, but it’s important to understand the inherent implications for transparency, comparability, and donor trust.

Other Interesting Terms I Picked Up

A few other concepts floated through various presentations:

“Medium Rich”: A loosely defined descriptor of someone’s wealth; definitions vary dramatically by geography and personal perspective.

“Cognitive Empathy”: Discussed especially in relation to donor motivation and fundraising practice. Worth thinking about.

“PSM” (Public Service Motivation): A recurring theme in discussions of nonprofit leadership and workforce behavior.

Final Thoughts

Attending ARNOVA was an eye-opening experience — energizing, surprising, and full of ideas I’m still processing. It also left me feeling encouraged: the academic conversations happening right now are deeply relevant to what donors, fundraisers, and nonprofits are grappling with on the ground.

If you were at ARNOVA this year, I’d love to hear what stood out to you.
And if you weren’t, I hope these insights gave you a tiny taste of what’s happening in the research world that shapes the work we all care about.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

The term “chugger”? Not so much. Turns out a “chugger” combines the words “charity” and “mugger” to connote a “street fundraiser” who is aggressive and invasive. The term started in the UK several years ago.

We often wonder why many donors (or prospective donors) don’t trust fundraisers (and, by extension, nonprofits), almost as a default. After learning about the unfortunate term, “chugger”, I realized that the term “fundraiser” can mean two very different kinds of people. The job title “fundraiser” can mean a chugger, but it can also mean a professional fundraiser. To those professionals working in the sector, the difference in connotations is clear. But what about one of the millions of people who are considering donating to nonprofits who hear the word “fundraiser” and think “chugger” or “chugger-like”?

Maybe we have a chance to rehabilitate the word “fundraiser”.

Columnist Dana Milbank of the Washington Post published a wonderful article in October where he described a recent Cornell study about people and purpose. Specifically, this six-year project by Anthony Burrow studied Gen Zers to see if articulating their own purpose, and then acting to fulfill that purpose, would impact their level of happiness. He found that articulating and acting on one’s purpose on a regular basis increased well-being significantly. In his study, Barrow found that, as Milbank relates, 95% of the young people studied, when given the chance to make a contribution, did so, and those contributions were specifically designated to help other people.

Evidently, according to Milbank, other studies focused on people and purpose have been done in recent years with populations beyond solely Gen Z. They found that, as Milbank relates, “a greater sense of purpose” is associated with a reduction in several health issues, as well as an increase in self-esteem, a sense of meaning, personal resilience, mood and adaptability.

Which brings me to fundraisers for nonprofits.

If people in general are happier when they are acting on their sense of purpose, and if that action often means making a contribution to someone else, then shouldn’t fundraisers see themselves as facilitators for happiness?

All too often, fundraisers are thought of as salespeople (or even “chuggers”), as opposed to facilitators of happiness. All too often, board members suggest that a looming deficit can be reversed if only “the fundraiser goes out and raises more money”. Some fundraisers themselves see their work as a “job” with the responsibility to procure a donation from a donor — as much money as possible as quickly as possible. That’s the “transactional” mindset that has and continues to plague the nonprofit sector.

The opposite of “transactional” is “relational” (or “relationship-based”). If people can live better, feel happier and have a stronger sense of well-being because they’re doing something purposeful, then fundraisers can be the conduit to make that happen.

At the same time, those same fundraisers are doing purposeful work themselves by facilitating the donation, which can, in turn, increase their own personal happiness.

Maybe we can replace the idea of fundraisers as “salespeople” with the concept of fundraisers as facilitators of purpose — helping increase happiness for people who want to act on their sense of purpose but don’t know how.

And perhaps, in doing so, we can retire the word “chuggers” for good.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

In this bi-monthly feature, Lisa tackles burning questions from across the nonprofit world — from donors seeking clarity, to fundraisers facing tough choices, to board members striving for greater impact.

Each column offers practical, candid insights to help everyone in the philanthropic ecosystem better understand one another — and do more good, together.

Have a question for Lisa? Let us know - share it in the Substack comments below, email it to greer.team@lisagreer.com, or message Lisa on LinkedIn and your question may be featured in an upcoming column.

This Month’s Questions:

Q1: What’s the difference between a one-time donor and a recurring donor?
Q2: How can I encourage recurring gifts?

The Truth About “One-Time” Donors

You’d think this question would have a simple answer, but like so many things in philanthropy, it’s more complicated than it looks.

Even the term “one-time donor” can mean wildly different things depending on who you ask. Some fundraisers use it to describe someone who gives once and never again. Others mean an annual donor. Still others use it for anyone who gives outside a recurring program.

Here’s the problem: those definitions come with judgment baked in.

Too often, “one-time donor” carries a negative connotation, as if the donor wasn’t loyal enough, didn’t value the relationship, or didn’t like the organization’s follow-up. But sometimes, these “one-timers” simply didn’t know they were supposed to give again. Maybe they made a gift because they liked your mission, or because a friend invited them to a gala, or because they wanted to honor a loved one. In many cases, no one ever explained what an ongoing relationship could look like.

If a donor was never told that giving annually (or monthly) was even an option, can we really fault them for not repeating their donation?

So rather than labeling someone as “lapsed” or “one-time,” start by asking: Did we ever have a conversation about what’s next? That single question changes everything.

Understanding Recurring Donors

“Recurring donor” is another phrase that deserves a fresh look.

In fundraising, “recurring donor” often means “monthly donor.” But it can also mean quarterly, annually, or even someone who gives every year on their birthday. The key is consistency — a pattern of caring and connection.

Recurring donors are one of the most under-leveraged assets in fundraising today.

For years, there’s been a persistent myth that these donors are “small givers” and that if someone gives $10 or $20 a month, they’re unlikely to ever become a major donor. That assumption is simply false.

The data tells a different story. The 2023 Neon One Recurring Giving Report found that recurring donors are six times more likely to make legacy gifts than other donors. They’re more loyal, have higher lifetime value, and are far more likely to keep giving through economic ups and downs.

Common Myths vs. Real Truths

Myths:

• Monthly donors only give small amounts and stay small.

• You have to choose between asking for a one-time gift or a monthly gift — you can’t do both.

• Monthly donors don’t need cultivation because their gift is on autopilot.

• Asking for recurring gifts will take away from annual or major giving.

• Recurring donors are less valuable than one-time donors.

Realities:

• Grow over time - Recurring donors often give more over time and are more likely to upgrade or make additional one-time gifts.

• Empower donors - Donors appreciate having both options, it empowers them to give in a way that fits their life and budget.

• Need stewardship - Even recurring donors need gratitude, updates, and impact stories to stay connected.

• Stabilize budget - Recurring giving creates stability and predictable cash flow, strengthening the organization between campaigns and events.

• Deliver long-term value - Over the long term, recurring donors are your most loyal and highest-value supporters.

Quick Tips to Encourage Recurring Giving

1. Offer both options clearly and side-by-side.
   On your donation page, present one-time and monthly giving options together. For example: “Give $100 today — or sustain your impact with a $10 monthly gift.”

2. Explain the impact of monthly support.
   Donors aren’t signing up for a subscription box, they’re investing in year-round stability. Help them see that. “Your monthly gift helps us plan ahead, keep our doors open between events, and serve when times are tough.”

3. Communicate how it helps your organization.
   Emphasize cash flow, predictability, and impact continuity. “Your steady support means fewer surprises — and more lives changed.”

4. Make it easy to manage.
   Use friendly renewal and card-update reminders. Make it simple for donors to adjust or pause their giving.

5. Recognize and steward them intentionally.
   Recurring donors should feel like insiders... part of your mission family. Send tailored updates, stories, and gratitude.

The Bigger Picture

At the heart of both questions lies a simple truth: people give because they care, but they stay because they feel seen.

Whether someone donates once, annually, or monthly, their gift is an act of trust. It’s our job to honor that trust by communicating clearly, eliminating assumptions, and inviting them into a relationship that feels genuine, not transactional.

After all, recurring generosity starts with recurring connection.

Share

Inspired by Fahrenheit 451, the classic novel about a world where books are burned to suppress ideas, Philanthropy 451 is about igniting the opposite — sparking bold conversations in a field that too often avoids them. Philanthropy shouldn’t be on fire for the wrong reasons; it should be burning with curiosity, honesty, and change. This newsletter is a place to challenge assumptions, question outdated norms, and reimagine what giving can be when we’re not afraid to turn up the heat.

Not a premium subscriber yet? We hope you will consider joining us. Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

To truly unlock transformational giving, nonprofits must rethink not only who they consider potential major donors but also how they engage with them throughout the donor journey.

A Major Gift Isn’t a Fixed Dollar Amount

One of the most common missteps in major gift fundraising is clinging to a rigid definition of what constitutes a "major gift." The truth is that there’s no universal benchmark. For a grassroots organization with a modest annual budget, a $1,000 contribution might be transformational. For a national nonprofit, that threshold may be $100,000 or more.

The value of a major gift isn’t in the number—it’s in the intention, impact, and engagement that accompany it. Rather than pursuing donors based on arbitrary giving levels, fundraisers should focus on relationship-building with those who demonstrate strong affinity for the mission and consistent engagement. A $250 donor who gives every year, volunteers monthly, and regularly shares your work on social media may be far more valuable in the long run than a one-time $10,000 check from a disconnected benefactor.

Reframing how your organization defines and recognizes major giving
opens the door to new possibilities and empowers fundraisers to work with
a broader pool of supporters.

Data Can Reveal Hidden High-Impact Donors

In nearly every organization, high-potential donors are already present — they’re just waiting to be identified. Fortunately, you don’t need expensive wealth-screening software to get started. Even basic data analysis can unearth strong candidates for deeper engagement.

Start by segmenting your donor database. Look for:

• Repeat donors with increasing annual gifts

• Monthly givers who’ve stayed engaged for multiple years

• Volunteers or advocates who haven’t yet given large gifts but demonstrate consistent support

• In-kind donors who may have capacity to give financially

• Donors with lapsed giving but previously strong engagement

Publicly available data, such as LinkedIn profiles, news mentions, or real estate records, can add helpful context — if used thoughtfully and respectfully. For example, learning that a donor just sold a business or was featured in a “40 Under 40” list could indicate increased capacity and openness to new philanthropic endeavors.

Similarly, social media platforms offer insight into donors’ values and passions. Is someone consistently liking or sharing posts about environmental justice or access to education? That’s a signal worth acting on.

Technology can help, but it’s only part of the equation. Data should support, not replace, human insight, empathy, and curiosity.

Trust and Personal Connection Drive Major Giving

One of the most seismic shifts in modern philanthropy is the emergence of first-generation wealth. These individuals often made their fortunes through entrepreneurship, real estate, tech innovation, or high-growth startups — and unlike inherited wealth holders, they’re navigating philanthropy on their own terms.

Many of these donors are unfamiliar with traditional giving norms. They’re not used to capital campaign dinners or gala circuits. Instead, they’re motivated by authenticity, accountability, and impact.

Organizations that rely on canned messaging, one-size-fits-all stewardship, or opaque processes will likely fall short. A better approach is to meet donors where they are and prioritize trust over tactics.

Something as simple as asking, “How do you prefer to be recognized?” or “What inspired you to give?” can open meaningful conversations. Be transparent about how their contributions are used. Share impact stories, even if they’re small. Let them see the people and programs they’re supporting.

According to The Nonprofit Alliance, 74% of donors say their passion for the cause plays a major role in their decision to give. That means understanding donor motivations isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s essential.

Rethink Monthly Giving as a Major Gift Strategy

Monthly giving is often seen as a small-donor strategy—but this mindset leaves enormous potential on the table.

Research shows that the average monthly donor stays active for more than eight years, and nearly 50% go on to make additional gifts, often outside of their recurring plan. These donors are reliable, mission-aligned, and emotionally invested.

Start treating monthly donors like future major donors. Offer early access to program updates, invite them to exclusive briefings or town halls, and share stories that connect their ongoing support to long-term impact.

You might even consider launching a named monthly donor circle—think Sustainers for Change or Friends of the Mission. Offer modest but meaningful perks: hand-written notes, early previews of annual reports, or surprise “thank you” gifts tied to your mission.

By nurturing monthly givers as key stakeholders, you plant seeds for transformational giving in the future.

Matching Gifts Can Activate New Generosity

Matching gifts aren’t just a tactical tool to boost short-term revenue—they’re a strategic lever to build a culture of shared generosity.

When a major donor commits to a match, it sparks urgency and excitement. More importantly, it makes other donors feel like part of something bigger. They’re no longer giving alone; they’re contributing to a collective impact.

For the major donor, it’s an opportunity to catalyze change and inspire others to step up. For your broader community, it’s a moment of connection and motivation.

According to the State of Donation Matching report, just 10% of major donors giving $10,000 in matching funds each year could unlock $1.56 billion in new donations. That’s not just incremental growth—it’s a game-changing opportunity.

If you’re not already using matches as part of your major gift strategy, now is the time. Highlight the stories of match donors. Share why they gave and what it means to them. Encourage others to consider how their gift could activate community-wide support.

Your Donors Are People, Not Payment Methods

Ultimately, major gift fundraising isn’t about money—it’s about mission. And the key to sustained, transformational giving is a simple but powerful principle: treat donors like people, not payment processors.

Take time to listen to their stories. Ask about their families, their careers, their goals for the future. Learn what matters to them — not just in terms of giving, but in life.

When you approach donors with curiosity and care, you create opportunities for deeper alignment. You invite them to be part of something meaningful, not just financially, but emotionally and intellectually.

Transparency matters. Impact stories matter. But above all, relationships matter. Donors want to know that their support is making a difference, that they’re part of a community, and that they’re respected and valued for who they are—not just for what they give.

From Transactional to Transformational

To unlock major gifts, nonprofits must go beyond traditional fundraising tactics and embrace a more holistic, human-centered approach. That means:

• Redefining what a “major gift” means for your organization

• Using data to uncover hidden potential

• Prioritizing authentic relationship-building

• Viewing monthly donors as long-term partners

• Leveraging match campaigns to build community-wide momentum

• Centering every interaction around empathy, trust, and shared
  purpose

In today’s evolving philanthropic landscape, the organizations that will thrive are those willing to move from transactional thinking to transformational relationships. Donors aren’t ATMs — they’re allies. And when you treat them that way, you don’t just raise more money. You raise the bar on what’s possible.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

This article was published in the September issue of The Non Profit Times. View it here.

Our conversations are typically about DAFs, and we continue to discuss everything “DAF,” from the positive and negative consequences of tax reform and their future, to why nonprofits are so reticent to recognize and support DAF account holders.

Many of you are familiar with my (relentless) push for nonprofits to survey their entire donor database with my “four questions.” Chelsea’s suggestions mirror those questions, and then go beyond them. (If you’re not familiar with my four survey questions, or if you want a refresher, here’s a link.)

Both of our surveys start with asking donors how they want to be addressed, and the rest are Chelsea’s wonderful additional suggestions. You can read through all of them below! If you think of something you think should be added to the list, feel free to leave a comment. Enjoy, learn, and hopefully implement a survey!

How Donors Want to Be Addressed

(These questions and answers should always be checked against your existing database.)

• Titles matter: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc.

• Name changes: Has a name been dropped, added, or changed?

• Foundation names: If “Jane and John Foundation” becomes “Jane Smith Foundation,” it’s worth asking why.

Frequency and Acknowledgment

• Are they recurring monthly or quarterly donors?

• If so, how often do they want to be thanked—and in what way?

Intent and Designation

• Was the gift pledged to general funds, a specific department, an annual fund, an event, a tithe, or a race/run?

• Was it made in honor of or in memory of someone? (If so, who was the person to the donor?)

Timing and Personalization

• When during the year was the gift made?

• Did the donor include a personal note with their gift? (If they did, what did it say, and what can you learn from it?)

Most donors understand the rhythm of giving: ask, donate, thank. Much of it is automated, and they accept that. But the DAF grant distribution form offers a rare opportunity to break that cycle and personalize the experience. It’s not just a transaction—it’s a conversation.

Through their contribution, donors are already telling you how they want to be addressed. Match your language to theirs. It’s astonishing how often nonprofits override donor preferences in favor of internal defaults. If the form says, “Jane and John Smith,” don’t default future correspondence to only “Mr. Smith.” And if your fundraising software defaults to male-first naming conventions, it’s time to customize.

Ignoring these details sends the message that you’re not listening. If you’re unsure, pick up the phone and ask. It’s a meaningful touchpoint—and it shows that you value them as individuals. (Hint: Do not make that a solicitation call, unless your call goes so well that you end up in an authentic conversation.)

Donor relationships don’t follow a single formula. In some households, one partner handles all charitable giving; in others, it’s a joint decision. Your technology should be flexible enough to reflect their preferences. If it’s not, make updating your system a priority—because donors will gravitate toward organizations that treat them with respect.

When you get it right, donors feel seen and heard. When you get it wrong, they feel invisible.

Everyone Wants to Be Seen

Everyone, fundraisers and donors included, intrinsically want to be seen and heard. In the height of the pandemic, my friend and colleague Claire Axelrad wrote this lovely piece about conveying to donors that you “see” them and that your relationship is authentic. She has lots of creative ways to message that, and along with my “four questions survey,” you’ll be able to tell which of Claire’s ideas might be appropriate for a particular donor.

Building authentic relationships (instead of transactional ones) is a skill that everyone should practice—not just those in the nonprofit sector. For fundraisers, learning how to build these relationships will be helpful in your personal life and, at the same time, will help you preserve, retain, and grow your donor database. It will also make your job as a fundraiser much more enjoyable and gratifying.

David Brooks touches on this in his book, How To Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen. Although written for a broad audience, it can be very helpful for those working in fundraising. Here’s how the publisher describes it:

“Driven by his trademark sense of curiosity, Brooks draws from the fields of psychology and neuroscience, and from the worlds of theatre, history, and education, to present a welcoming, hopeful, integrated approach to human connection. How to Know a Person helps readers become more understanding and considerate towards others; it helps readers find the joy that comes from being seen. Along the way it offers a possible remedy for a society that is riven by fragmentation, hostility, and misperception.”

Bottom line: Get to know your donor. Don’t assume that because they might have financial resources, they like or want this or that. Learn from Claire Axelrad and David Brooks and get to know your donor as an individual—just like you.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

Isn’t the donor meeting just the means to an end (i.e. the “sale”)? When a fundraiser reports back on a donor meeting, are they congratulated on beginning a relationship with the donor, or do accolades only come based on the binary result — did you get a gift, or not? This common response of relationship being less important than getting a gift is holding us back from the success we’re striving for.

With the ever-stuck (and often declining) donor retention rate (80% of first-time donors don’t give again the next year), we have to ask: what’s the real problem? Is it the donors? Are they difficult people with resources and an abundance of attitude? Do we really need to pander to them, and do or say whatever it takes to get them to give?

Of course not. Everyone has been a donor, of something, at some point in their lives. So it’s important to realize that the vast majority of donors — just like you — are good people wanting to do good. Do we need to make nasty assumptions about them because there have been a few bad actors along the way? How does that make sense?

So what do donors want, anyway? And how do we get them to give, or give more?

Donors want relationships with the organizations they support, not to be manipulated or feel like they’re simply ATMs. Similarly, donors don’t want to be “owned” by nonprofits or expected to give because (a) they have money, or (b) they’ve given before. Donors want to do good and feel good about contributing to something bigger than themselves, and to be part of a community. Like most humans, they want to feel purpose, joy, connection.

Because they want those things doesn’t mean, even remotely, that they expect to be kowtowed to. It’s actually insulting — and counter-productive — to even think that, and a waste of energy on both sides of the equation.

The answer to “getting them to give” must be, then, that it takes magic. Just find the magic switch, and you’re good!

Silly? Of course it is.

As a donor, many nonprofit fundraisers approach me to have a “get to know you” discussion, or to tell me about the great work that their organization does. Sometimes the conversation feels like the fundraiser is on a kind of fishing expedition to see if they can land the big catch of the day. I often sense, during these meetings, that the fundraiser is trying to navigate a maze — “turn left here, or turn right there, turn around and try another path”— trying to find the perfect words or approach that will “make” me donate. At the end of these pitch meetings, I often have the sense that I just wasted an hour or two that I’ll never get back. Not a good feeling.

Even more upsetting is the feeling that all the banter during the meeting — which I thought was about us getting to know each other as individual people who care about doing good — was really just talk to see if they could find my “magic switch”.

A magic switch is the opposite of an authentic relationship. My friend and colleague Jason Lewis got it 100% right when he wrote the following in his recent LinkedIn post:

“Fundraisers, let’s stop blaming our donors for attrition. They’re not fickle. They’re not lazy. They’re not too distracted by TikTok. The problem isn’t them. It’s us. We built a system on the wrong logic.”

Later in the piece, he adds, “And we’ll keep missing the obvious truth: generosity lasts only when it’s experienced as part of a distinct, particular relationship”.

I realize that I’m writing as both a donor and as a nonprofit leader, as both a board member and as a doctoral student. But that really doesn’t matter. We’re all people, and we all want to be heard, seen, and to feel like our lives have purpose.

Remembering that will make your fundraising efforts more successful, but it will also make your fundraising more personally rewarding for you. We all deserve to feel good about being part of this NGO community.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

18–22% of your first-time donors will give again the following year.
So 78–82% will not.

43–45% of donors overall will continue to support your organization.
So 55–57% will not.

90% of monthly donors will continue to give.
So only 10% will not.

Which of these is better?

Did you know that acquiring a new donor gift costs about five times more than retaining an existing one?

So which is better — bringing in a new donor or keeping the ones you already have? (You want — and need — both.)

The numbers above have remained consistent for years, yet most nonprofits either don’t offer or don’t promote monthly giving programs — the most “sticky” type of giving. Most focus on, and spend the most resources on, recruiting and “bringing in” new donors.

You might know that I’m somewhat obsessed with monthly giving. Monthly giving — otherwise known as recurring giving — is, more often than not, where your organization’s true believers “hang out.” Research shows that recurring donors are much more “sticky,” often supporting your nonprofit for 8+ years, while the average “regular” donor stays for less than two. Yet most nonprofits either don’t have these programs, or if they do, they don’t actively promote them.

(The current thinking is that monthly giving results in donors giving less — but recent research shows that’s not the case.)

Personally, I’m a donor to several different monthly giving programs, and in the past two days, I’ve heard from three of them. The interactions varied tremendously — and I thought I could best make my point by sharing them.

Case #1: The Silent One

A few days ago, I noticed a monthly charge to a nonprofit I’d forgotten I was supporting — let’s call them Example One. It had been about two years since I signed up, and in that time, I’d received nothing from them aside from generic donation requests. Strike One.

I tried to cancel online — but there was no option to do so. I had to email a staff member, who politely responded and cancelled my gift, asking why. I wanted to reply “because I never heard from you,” but didn’t have the time to get into it.

They also didn’t send regular monthly receipts. Some nonprofits do, but this one didn’t.

Lesson learned:
Pay attention to your monthly donors. Don’t make them call or email to cancel. Better to keep them happy and engaged so they don’t even think about canceling.

Drop them a quick line — a text or a short email. Tell them you appreciate them. Share a win.
Just communicate.

Don’t assume they’ll forget the charge. There’s no “warm glow” without communication.

Case #2: The Honest One

I got an email titled “An email you’ve likely never received before” (paraphrasing). It explained that many recurring donors unknowingly make multiple monthly gifts to the same organization. They advised how to check for duplicates and explained that some shady orgs do this on purpose.

When asked why they didn’t email donors directly, they explained that many donors use multiple email addresses, so a mass message was needed.

They closed by explaining how important recurring gifts are — and how they help the organization fulfill its mission.

Lesson learned:
Don’t be afraid to talk about money. If you’re afraid that confirmation might cause donors to cancel — sure, some might. But most (like me) will respect the transparency and be more loyal as a result.

Case #3: The Appreciative One

I recently became a monthly donor to a small, fast-growing nonprofit I believe in. Over several months, I received one or two concise, friendly updates — not asking for more money — just saying “thank you” and sharing their progress.

Most recently, I received an update celebrating the org’s growth and offering a high-quality baseball cap with their logo — just for monthly donors. I clicked “yes, please!” and now proudly wear my cap to promote them.

Lesson learned:
Monthly donors are (or can become) your biggest cheerleaders. Show them they matter. Surprise them with a small token — but ask first. Many donors don’t want “stuff” — they just want to feel seen and appreciated.

Final note

If you’re still not convinced that recurring giving should be a key part of your development strategy, there’s no shortage of research saying otherwise. You’re missing the boat.

Neon One’s March 2024 report is my favorite, but there are many others.
Email me if you’d like more suggestions.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

But is an all-out celebration in order? Read on…

The number of individual donors is continuing its decline, and that trend appears to be accelerating. In the 1980s, it is estimated that over 75% of American households made charitable donations. In the 1990s, that number started decreasing a few percentage points at a time. By the year 2000, that number was 66%, and in 2010 the number dropped to 57%.

In 2020, the number of individual donor households was about 49%, and according to the new report, 2024 saw that number drop even further, to approximately 47%.

But is it the whole picture? Sure, comparing apples to apples tells us something. But what if individual giving is not decreasing, and the methodology for these reports is not as robust and all-encompassing as it might be? What if, after Covid, more people are giving via “mutual aid” to friends/family/community (which is not tracked by these reports) as opposed to cash donations given to nonprofits (which are tracked by these reports)? Here’s an interesting article about that possibility.

Another piece of the pie is the money going to charities from DAFs (Donor Advised Funds). Estimates show that more than a quarter of all online giving is going to DAFs, and that money only shows up as a donation when the funds are sent to the DAF program/financial institution (as opposed to when the funds go on to a non-DAF charitable organization.) In the GivingUSA report, much of that money (the billions sent to DAF programs), shows up in the foundation column, not the individual donor column.

Our sector, for the most part, is very new, and we’re learning as we go along. What we do know is that people continue to want to be generous, and as Richard Perry and Jeff Schreifels of Veritus Group wrote in 2022, donors (individual donors) all want:

1. To be known.

2. To be treated as a partner.

3. To be told the truth.

4. To know their gift made a difference.

Regardless of the numbers or the way they’re tracked, donors are human beings, and human beings are inherently generous. (We’re evidently “hard-wired” that way!)

Now lets use this great data as a guide, and then move on to building those authentic, long-lasting relationships. There are donors out there who you don’t yet know!

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

In Philanthropy Revolution, Lisa Greer challenges the status quo—calling out outdated fundraising tactics that alienate the very people you want to connect with. From tone-deaf galas to one-size-fits-all appeals, Lisa reveals what turns new donors away—and what actually builds lasting, loyal relationships.

This is a must-read for nonprofits that want to earn the trust of a new generation of donors, especially those inheriting or building significant wealth. Real engagement starts with respect, authenticity, and listening.

As a thank you for being a Philanthropy 451 Subscriber, we are running a Flash Sale on the hardcover version of the book at a 33% discount just for you!

Plus, when you leave a review for our Amazon seller account, you will also receive a link to our just released, up-to-date index, which has never been available in the past.

Click here and choose the Hardcover option under Philanthropy Revolution to get your 33% savings!

If you're ready to rethink what fundraising should look like, grab your copy now!

Research shows that only about 20% of first-time donors give a second time, but effective expressions of gratitude can increase the likelihood of repeat donations significantly. By acknowledging and celebrating the impact of each donation, organizations can make donors feel valued and respected, encouraging them to remain engaged in the future.

As Neon One’s Alex Huntsberger recently wrote in his article about second gift strategies:

• “Not to be too hyperbolic, but if you don’t follow up to say “thank you” after someone’s first donation, you might as well print out their donor file, crumple it up, and launch a Steph Curry-style three right into the wastebasket.

• When it comes to donor retention, saying “thanks” really is that important.

• Your donation receipt should include a quick thank-you message, but that isn’t enough. Within 48 hours of that gift, send the first email in your series—a separate, full-length thank-you letter.”

Personally, I have heard story upon story from donors lamenting that they weren’t thanked for a donation (including one long-time donor who gave a six-figure gift and still hadn’t received a thank you in the following six months.)

I understand that some donors might have actually received a thank you, but the thank you didn’t make them feel that they and their gift were appreciated. The only way you could know that is it you have developed — or are developing — an authentic relationship with your donor.

So what’s a fundraiser to do? What do donors want in terms of thank you messages?

Here are my top tips on thanking donors:

1. However you decide to thank a donor, do it quickly. Some say 48 hours from the receipt of the gift (or even from the time you’re told about it), and others say 24 hours. A great article from the National Council of Nonprofits sizes it up by admonishing “soon!” It also reminds us that the “tax letter” confirming a gift for accounting purposes doesn’t need to get to the donor immediately — but the thank you note does.

2. Do you really need to include another ask in every thank you note? I know that one of the longtime “fundraising do’s and don’ts” says that every single piece of communication from a nonprofit to a donor must ask for a donation. It doesn’t. As a longtime donor, I find that, well, obnoxious — especially if it’s my first gift to the organization. In her interview with Amy Eisenstein, Lynne Wester calls this “thasking”. In addition to that great word, my favorite line from the interview is this:

   AE: “What do you say to those organizations that include a request envelope in their thank you notes?”

   LW: “My question to the people that do that is what percentage of your revenue do

   those gifts amount to versus your retention. I think they’re running off more donors than they’re keeping.”

3. “Donor-centered thank you letters are not just a nicety. They’re the critical first step to getting the next gift.” My friend and colleague Claire Axelrad says it all in this article from Claire’s blog — in one of the best pieces I’ve seen about thank you notes and about their impact on donor relationships. Here you can learn some sure-fire ways of ensuring that your donor doesn’t return — or how you can increase the chance that they will return to give again.

4. There are many ways to thank a donor. Try to find the one that works for the particular donor you’re thanking. How can you ascertain that? The easiest way is to ask them! If you have an authentic relationship with a donor, you should know the answer to this. Whether it’s a new donor or you’re just developing the relationship, just ask them. It’s a wonderful thing — by doing so, the donor will feel “seen” as an individual human, as opposed to just an ATM/wallet/source of money. The donor won’t have to think about which way they want to be thanked — everyone (donors or otherwise) know their particular answer to this. And if the answer is “however you feel like thanking me”, that’s all good, too!

5. Do not assume. Assuming that donors/people with “resources” insist on thank you notes is unfair and suggests that all donors are the same and think the same. Just like you, everyone has their own likes, dislikes and preferences. Ask — don’t assume.

6. When asking a donor how they liked to be thanked, be sure to include the various ways you might thank them. Make sure to include videos, text messages, email, phone calls, etc. Instead of just asking “how do you like to be thanked”, the conversation will be easier if you offer these options.

7. Please do not push them to go to your “donor appreciation event” if that’s not their thing. Don’t put their name in a report (or on a wall, brick pathway, etc.) without their specific permission. If they want to be anonymous, or if they just don’t want to be thanked in certain ways, honor that.

8. If you’re stressing what ink color or paper quality to use in your thank you notes, you’re wasting precious time. Instead, think about how much they might like a quick video thank you — specifically to them — taken on your cell phone. Or a phone call. Whatever it is, it must be prompt. 48 hours or less! You can always send a nice note later, but your first priority must be getting the thank you to them immediately. Timeliness is more important than format.

9. Be sure to keep your donors informed. Waiting for an annual report isn’t the answer. Keep donors informed about how their contributions are making a difference. Send regular updates, newsletters, or impact stories that showcase the ongoing work of the organization and the work you could do because of their support.

10. Think about how your thank you message will make your donor feel. There’s a great study by the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy that was done in 2018 — and remains highly relevant today. The authors and researchers involved in the report are some of the best thought leaders today, and the report is well worth reading.

This 2018 article references a study by Penelope Burk reporting that only four out of every 10 donors receives a thank you for their donation. Didn’t we all learn to say “thank you” when we were toddlers?

I understand that many nonprofits are constrained by limited resources, but thanking a donor needs to be at the top of your “to do” list. If you think about how important gratitude is in your own life, you’ll remember that it’s important to share it with your donors.

As Gertrude Stein said, “Silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone.”

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

All flash sale buyers who leave a review for our Amazon seller account will also receive a link to our just released, up-to-date index, which has never been available in the past.

Click here and choose the Hardcover option under Philanthropy Revolution to get your 33% savings!

In this bestselling book, Lisa offers a refreshingly honest look at what’s broken in the nonprofit world—and how we can fix it. With real stories and practical solutions from a major donor’s perspective, Philanthropy Revolution is the must-read guide for anyone who cares about making giving better.

Now’s the perfect time to grab your copy—and start changing the game.

Several years ago, I was on a nonprofit board that was, well, challenging. I was relatively new to board participation, so I didn’t speak up when certain confusing things occurred, but in hindsight, I wish I had.

This was a board of an organization that I love and respect — and one that I had participated in as a volunteer in the past. I felt proud to have been asked to serve on the board, and I looked forward to learning how “professional” boards work. At the same time, I was eager to roll up my sleeves and participate in whatever they wanted me to do. As I sat on and observed that and other boards “in action”, I thought the way they did things was the norm.

Fast forward to today, and as a professional in the sector, I now see both sides of the relationship — the operational/professional side as well as the board member side — with much more perspective than I had years ago. What I learned is that there really isn’t a norm, but there probably should be. Despite an array of resources like BoardSource, Chronicle of Philanthropy, multiple scholarly journals, and numerous books, nonprofit boards still run the gamut between being highly professional and efficient, and being a group of friends getting together to do good.

With today’s challenges — grants cancelled, donors cautious, and nonprofits still recovering from the COVID years — we now have an opportunity to take stock of our board and think about what we can do better.

Boards are mandated by tax law, and you can’t be a 501(c)(3) without one. There’s a reason for that. Boards are, as BoardSource tells us, “expected to uphold the public trust by ensuring the organization carries out the purpose for which it was established and that it does so in a responsible and accountable manner”. So in practice, what does that mean? Is our board there just to make sure we submit 990s and don’t go too far off mission? A well-functioning board does much more than that. Well-functioning boards should be a group of engaged supporters who share a passion for the organization’s mission and who realize that they’re a critical part of the three-legged support system that makes up a successful nonprofit. If that leg is weak, the organization will suffer.

A supportive nonprofit board is a resource and sounding board for the leadership of an organization. Fiduciary responsibility, mission alignment, financial stability and sustainability are all part of the support that a board of directors is there to provide.

But some boards — many, perhaps — either aren’t aware of those responsibilities, or they just don’t much care about best practices and standards. In the case of this board that I had joined, instead of discussing mission alignment, sustainability and ensuring that the organization had the resources it needed to succeed, they had their own way of operating. Here are few examples:

1. The CEO admonished all board members that they were never to interact in any way with staff members without her prior consent. No detail or reason was given.

2. We went around the table to share our personal reasons for joining the board, and the board chair’s answer was simply, “I’m here to make friends”. Consequently, we spent a great deal of board meeting time talking about our next social event.

3. The CEO made it clear that she ran the board and set the agenda, which meant that conversations about the CEO didn’t happen.

4. Despite my looking around the room and seeing that, with one or two exceptions, the board (which was, at that point, about 20+ people), was comprised of people who were roughly the same age, the same ethnicity, and resided in the same geographic location (which was a small subset of the geographic area that the nonprofit served.) Why would we want to convene 20+ people who all have similar life experiences? A successful, productive board needs age diversity (it makes sense to have a “digital native” to weigh in on tech or social media issues, right?) It also needs geographic diversity, gender diversity, diversity of skill sets/professions, etc. Having a homogeneous board means that your board will miss opportunities, turn off certain donors, alienate volunteers, and more.

5. All fundraising programs and projects were presented de facto, with no room for discussion. Fundraising programs and projects weren’t open for discussion. They were presented as final decisions, with no space to evaluate whether they aligned with the mission. Our job was to join a committee and follow instructions from the CEO (oh, and make a significant financial contribution to the organization).

Fortunately, after several of us left the board in frustration — feeling that our time was wasted — the CEO left the organization and a committed, appropriate and professional CEO took over. The new CEO recognized the important and unique responsibility of the board, and wisely engaged the power of the board to do their part in ensuring that the organization was strong and sustainable.

Boards have a variety of challenges — and opportunities. In the case I described, the challenges were stasis, frustration, mismanagement and wasted time that should have served the mission. Some boards have other challenges, such as a culture that allows adversarial relationships with other board members and staff, a lack of understanding of (or even interest in) how the organization operates, an aversion to fundraising, or just under-involvement in general.

One of the challenges that I find most egregious is the generally unhelpful or even negative attitude of many board members, which often comes from their being on the board by virtue of their status as a donor to the organization. Again and again, I see board members with personal agendas, an intense lack of respect for people around them (especially staff), an attitude that says “you’re lucky to have me — and my money”, and a lack of interest in understanding what the organization actually does and how it operates. And senior leadership (i.e. the CEO/ED), not wanting to lose a donor, feels stuck and does nothing.

Of course, if the board members don’t know or care about operations and organizational challenges, they’re more likely to insist that the fundraiser(s) just “do their job and bring in more money”. To ask a professional fundraiser to bring in donors without consideration of available resources, sector norms and methods, or overall strategy is insulting and counterproductive. I’ve found that even presenting industry statistics to many board members is met with indifference.

Shockingly, the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) reports that 27 % of nonprofit directors believe their board members do not have a strong understanding of the organization’s mission — yet they remain on the board.

Are boards/board members standing in the way of growth — and needed change? It sure seems that way. We need to bravely make the changes we need to grow and survive, and quit pandering to donors who don’t care about your nonprofit’s mission and sustainability. It might be hard to bite the bullet, but if you have board members impeding your success, you need to replace them.

Board transformation is absolutely possible. I’ve seen it firsthand. With the right leadership and some honest conversations, you can move from dysfunction to dynamic collaboration and, ultimately, institutional success.

In a world where three out of every four wealthy people are “FGW” (First Generation Wealthy), there are plenty of candidates out there — with a passion for missions like yours — who would love to serve on your board. Dysfunctional boards aren’t helpful, and the dysfunction becomes a distraction from your organization’s mission. Train your board or reconstitute your board — whatever it takes — but it won’t get better on its own. Don’t settle for a board that holds you back. You — and your mission — deserve better. Start the conversation (yes, even if it’s uncomfortable). And if you find members who are more hindrance than help—replace them with mission-aligned leaders. Your nonprofit’s future depends on it.

Tip: Sign up for BoardSource Exchange — a free user group for professionals dealing with all types of issues relating to nonprofit boards.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

I was at a conference recently where a participant recited customer retention rates in for-profit businesses as compared to nonprofits. Did you know that the average customer retention rate across all for-profit industries is about 75%? Granted, that number encompasses a variety of industries, but ours, even with ongoing donors, doesn’t get anywhere near 75%. Even retail is 63%, and hospitality is 55%. For our new “customers” (donors), we’re at 18-20%, depending on your source.

According to the most recent Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP) report released in April, donor retention continues to decline. In fact, for every 100 new donors that come in the door, less than 20 will give to the same organization the following year. In fact, in the first half of 2024, FEP estimated that only 11.1% of those 100 new donors returned to give in the next year. (Happily, that number improved by the close of the year, but it’s still not good.)

So if you feel like you’re on a never-ending treadmill, you are.

Some estimates say that it costs about $1.00-1.50 per dollar raised to acquire a new donor, but only $0.20 per dollar to retain that first-time donor. In other words, it costs a nonprofit about 5-7x more money to bring in a new donor than to retain an existing donor.

So why aren’t we paying more attention to this, trying to remedy the situation instead of continuing “business as usual”?

The way to fix it – or at least dramatically improve the situation – isn't rocket science. The first step is to acknowledge the problem, which I realize is uncomfortable. But without accepting that numbers from dozens of studies don’t lie, we’re stuck in an endless loop.

Once we decide that this is a crisis, and a ridiculous way of spending donor funds, we can start to fix this. The first step is to understand why it’s happening. And while there are lots of theories, one reason continues to rise to the top: most nonprofits don’t truly understand their donors. Not in a strategic, supportive, honest way. Not enough time is spent discovering who donors are, what motivates them, and what they expect from their giving experience. Can you tell what motivates a donor by understanding their past donations and level of wealth? That core information is important, but there’s so much more to the story, and donors (like anyone, really) hate when someone assumes something about them without knowing who they are as a person.

Instead, the focus remains almost exclusively on chasing the “big” money with, ideally, a quick turnaround. Fundraisers are still being trained, incentivized, and measured on their ability to close gifts that have at least 5-figures in them, and I’ve heard of many organizations lately who won’t really give you the “time of day” for anything less than a 7 or 8-figure gift. Anyone giving less than $10K — especially those in the $1K–5K range — might get a thank-you, maybe a holiday card, but not much else. (Actual interactive “get to know you” contact, anyone?)

And let’s be honest — spending most of your limited time on the big donors makes sense in a system obsessed with quarterly revenue targets and short-term wins. But it’s a dangerous game. Organizations that rely on a small group of major donors leave themselves exposed to sudden funding drops when one of those donors changes course. The pursuit of "big gifts only" has become the nonprofit version of putting all your eggs in one basket.

This isn’t just a retention problem. It’s a trust problem. Donors today are more savvy, more curious, and more values-driven than ever before. They expect a relationship, not a transaction. They want connection, transparency, and meaningful communication. And most nonprofits? They're just not delivering that — especially at scale.

Many younger donors – including those with significant resources — have reported that they would prefer to wait to give substantial amounts of money to a nonprofit until they feel they can trust that nonprofit. Many of them start by volunteering, to “check out” the culture of the organization and to get a sense of how they treat people who don’t have a big dollar sign on their forehead. They’ll ask a lot of questions about where the money goes and what their impact, as an organization, looks like. You might not know much about these donors (in terms of capacity or otherwise) because they’re new to the game and might not show up accurately on wealth screens. With the Great Wealth Transfer, they might have money — “new money” that doesn’t show up anywhere at all – but it’s there (or on its way).

It’s critical to understand that it’s easy to believe that young people don’t have financial resources, but there are far more young wealthy people around than there were in the past. Check out this article suggesting that “Millennials may have ditched their “broke generation” stereotype.” The same report shows that, “Household wealth among Americans under age 40 — which includes most millennials, who are currently ages 28 to 43, and some Gen Zers, who are currently in their teens and up to age 27 — grew by a whopping 49% between 2019 and 2023”.

We need to rethink how we engage donors across the spectrum, not just at the top. That means budgeting for donor experience, investing in systems that support personalized communication, and recognizing that long-term sustainability doesn’t come from a handful of major gifts, but from a broad base of committed supporters who feel seen and valued.

Here’s the good news: this kind of change is possible. And it doesn’t require a complete overhaul of your operations — just a shift in mindset. It starts with committing to seeing donors as people, just like you, regardless of their giving level.

Because the real question we should be asking isn’t “Why aren’t donors coming back?”

It’s -- What would it look like if they did?

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team

And yet... here we are. Despite Pallotta’s passionate argument—and widespread agreement in the sector—the same questions keep surfacing. Most often: “But how much do they spend on overhead?”

Donors are still fixated on overhead, whether it’s referred to as administrative costs, full cost recovery, operational costs, or just overhead. And while the occasional outrageous news story doesn’t help (like the Texas nonprofit paying its CEO $3.6M annually), those cases are extreme outliers. Most nonprofit leaders earn modest, market-reasonable salaries—many below what they could earn elsewhere.

So why are we still clinging to the idea that lean operations equal better impact?

If we want strong, effective leadership in the nonprofit sector, we have to pay for it. Period. As a donor, I want the organizations I support to have talented people running the show—and to provide the resources and work environment to keep them there. Staff turnover, especially in leadership, erodes donor trust. And without trust, fundraising becomes nearly impossible.

As a donor, I don’t expect nonprofits to operate on fumes. I know it costs money to raise money. I expect good operations. I expect investment in talent. And I understand that there are costs to doing this work well.

Even though most donors know that it takes money to run a successful organization (not just their programs), the norm has become donors measuring the nonprofits they support by their expenditure on overhead (those costs that keep the base operation functioning). And the nonprofits, in their efforts to bring in more donors and keep the ones they have, have been complicit, using the “100% of your gift goes to the cause” pitch on their websites and promotional materials. (Also, it’s generally false, as the concept of all overhead being paid by the board or major donor in advance is extremely rare.)

The real issue isn’t overhead—it’s effectiveness. I’d rather fund a high-impact nonprofit with a 30% overhead rate than a low-impact one that boasts 5%. Wouldn’t you?

We need to stop punishing nonprofits for doing what we’d expect from any well-run business: investing in people, systems, and infrastructure. Those things aren’t distractions from the mission—they’re what make the mission possible.

So the next time someone brings up overhead, maybe try this:
“I care less about how lean they are, and more about what they’ve accomplished.”

That’s the conversation worth having.

Share

Thank you to everyone who has joined us as a premium subscriber! Your support makes it possible to dive deeper into the conversations shaping the future of philanthropy.

Premium subscribers are invited to our exclusive monthly Power Hour, where I lead thought-provoking discussions with industry leaders on the most pressing topics in giving today. These interactive Zoom sessions are your chance to connect, learn, and collaborate with like-minded changemakers.

Not a premium subscriber yet? Upgrade your subscription now to join the next Power Hour and gain access to all premium content!

Subscribe now

As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.

Thank you for being part of the revolution!

—The Saving Giving Team