Donor Behavior Insights

6 insights from 18 months (and hundreds) of donor conversations + and what they mean for your 2026 fundraising plans 👇🏽 In our November Fundraising Innovation leaders Breakfast Club our fabulous qual researcher Rachael Millar shared 6 key insights all fundraisers should be thinking about going into 2026 plans. 1. Negative News Fatigue People are turning away from bad news - wars, climate crisis, economic instability - because it feels overwhelming. Many feel powerless or “numbed” by negativity. Opportunity: Focus on hope, progress, and solutions over problems. Localise stories - show small, tangible actions that make an impact. Give supporters agency and control See Hope not Hate mobilisation over the last 2 months against the far-right flag movement for evidence of this. 2. Trust & The “Single Source of Truth” People struggle to know who or what to trust. Conflicting information is everywhere - TV and radio are losing credibility. Opportunity: Charities are more trusted than the government — leverage this. Curate and simplify information for your audience. Offer actionable steps and expert guidance to build trust. Position your charity as the go-to source for reliable insight in your field. Every charity should increase its TikTok & YT output. Countering misinformation should be an organisational objective. 3. Digital Fatigue & Offline Connection Audiences (especially under 50) are questioning screen-heavy lifestyles and craving offline experiences. Reducing screen time has measurable benefits for well-being. Opportunity: Offer offline or hybrid activities connecting people IRL. Tap into nostalgia (e.g., pre-digital hobbies, traditional games, events) Promote wellbeing through community and experience, not just messaging 4. Community & Connection People crave belonging and shared purpose — “finding my people.” Community works across all fundraising areas, not just events. Opportunity: Build community elements into supporter journeys (e.g. peer groups, shared challenges). Encourage participation and collaboration rather than solo giving. Highlight kindness, togetherness, and shared values. Charities need to curate their own fandoms - there is a huge opportunity to double down in this area. 5.  Escapism & Joy Escapism is a major emotional driver - people want “holiday feelings,” daydreams, and light relief. Opportunity: Design experiences that feel immersive, fun, or transportive. Lotteries and competitions tap into “imaginative optimism.” Use joyful storytelling to offset fatigue and re-engage audiences. 6. Boldness Builds Trust Supporters respect authenticity and bravery. The RNLI’s success defending its migrant rescue work shows standing firm on values increases support. Opportunity: Be clear about what your organisation stands for. Don’t shy away from controversy when aligned with your mission. If you want the full write-up, just shout - we’re digging into these themes across all our 2026 product development work.

𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁.  𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆'𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵... People typically spend their disposable income out of their 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 (𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗞) 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀. Think monthly donations from individual givers, sponsoring a friend, buying charity Christmas cards, tickets to an event or anything from a charity shop. This money is generally low level, but crucially affordable (from the donor's point of view). It's usually unrestricted or restricted by the charity not the donor (like an appeal). This type of giving is low monetary donations from a high volume of people - it takes time, skill and investment to get going. But money out of a current/checking account (once you're up and running) can offer a relatively fast turn around - and a very reliable source of income. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁. This money has a job to do - it usually wants to change the future. It's set aside money, This money is only going to be given to someone the donor knows, likes and trusts. This money comes with a lot of competition from other charities. This is not an easily persuaded, low consideration process - this is a highly considered decision often by a team of people.  Who also need to measure results. Think, corporate budgets, grant making trusts or philanthropists with their families or advisors. Donations from "dedicated budgets" require a relationship. Relationships take time.  This giving is high monetary value from a low volume of people - it's not fast but it can be lucrative and sustainable if done well. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 (𝗜 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸) -  𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲. And when non fundraisers under estimate the time - it can lead to unrealistic targets and expectations. 📌 𝗦𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: If you're fundraising from people's current/checking accounts - yes that can be faster BUT you need volume (which is going to take time to build).  If you're fundraising from a budget - that is going to need a relationship to unlock (so you need a time to develop that). 𝗗𝗢 𝗡𝗢𝗧: ➡️ Think your fundraisers can magic up a high volume of prospects over night.  ➡️ Expect donors to treat dedicated budgets like their current/checking accounts. If you're setting targets for your fundraisers - recognise where the money is coming from and plan accordingly. How and why people spend money - determines how and why you fundraise like you do. 😀

This picture isn’t unusual It shows a donor’s personal giving record book. It was taken during a meeting between a Bluefrog researcher and a supporter. What’s striking is that the reason we spoke to this donor is because just one of the charities listed in that book, passed their details to us to discuss why they chose to the support their work. That's where my line "She is not your donor. You are one of her charities" comes from. When I share images like this with fundraisers, the reaction is often surprise that a donor would take so much care to document their giving. But this is far from rare. We’ve seen special bank accounts set up. Binders filled with appeals, thank-you letters and reports annotated with dates and donation amounts. Filing cabinets organised by charity. Press cuttings. Many handwritten notes. One donor even showed us a folder of Christmas cards from a celebrity patron. Donors do this because you matter to them, just like their money matters to them. That’s why they keep track. They want to understand whether they did the right thing by giving to you. In a world where trust in institutions is in decline, the way you treat them becomes a powerful proxy for how you deliver on the work they care about. Many compare how they're treated across different charities. And while poor treatment might not immediately stop them giving (especially if they strongly believe in your mission), it will stop them upgrading. It will stop them considering a legacy. It will stop them giving again when asked next time. This is the double-edged sword of donor insight. The truth is, when we really listen to donors, what we hear often clashes with what charities want to do. And that can be uncomfortable. That’s why I can say with confidence: 🛑 Most rebrands are unnecessary distractions. 🛑 Changing your charity name (without a powerful reason) will stall your income. 🛑 Value-exchange or engagement products rarely deliver a positive ROI. 🛑 Good newsletters work – really work. 🛑 Most very heavy email schedules deliver diminishing returns (especially with younger supporters). 🛑 Thanking and reporting back is the most intelligent use of budget you can make. 🛑 Enclosures that help donors feel special are worth every penny. 🛑 Referencing a donor’s past support in future appeals builds loyalty and income. 🛑 Donors give on their schedule – not yours. 🛑 And yes, if you break the unwritten rules of their giving – many donors will quietly walk away. I could go on. But the point is this: Real donor insight doesn’t always support the ideas that sound good in the boardroom or win the internal presentation. Sometimes, it tells you not to do the exciting new thing. Sometimes, it challenges the plan you’ve already started executing. That’s why research can be difficult. It’s also why it’s so valuable. But it's also why speaking to donors before you make a significant investment should also be something else. It should be usual. #fundraising

Most donor segmentation is cosmetic. Different ask amounts. Different names on the letter. Same message. Same mistake. Here’s the truth: A $25 donor isn’t a junior major donor. They’re motivated by different things. They need a different experience. Here’s how smart fundraisers segment: 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 They give because it feels good. So show them what their gift did—fast. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 They’ve said, “I’m with you.” Now treat them like insiders. 𝗠𝗶𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 They’re testing you with that gift. What happens next decides everything. 𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 They don’t fund programs. They fund outcomes that match their values. 𝗟𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 Not guilt-tripped. Just reminded why they gave in the first place. Segmentation isn’t about slicing a list. It’s about shaping the experience. The best fundraising strategies don’t just know who gave. They know why. How are you speaking differently to each type of giver?

Don't Just Record Gifts, Characterize Donors' Motivations All contributions are not made with the same intentions. Donors' motivations vary as do their levels of appreciation and conviction. Not all are predictive of future giving. Some are warnings of declines ahead. The more honest we are about our donors' motivations, the more effectively we can steward their contributions. Some really can't be stewarded. Some can't be stewarded well if we don't understand how personal they are and why they are so. All sorts of stories are embedded in the gifts we receive. Some are not really gifts; they are the closing of a philanthropic door. Some are bread crumbs; if we follow them closely, they will lead to much more. We never fail to record to the numbers. We have a tendency to characterize the totals as evidence of rousing support while rarely acknowledging the inevitable attrition already baked in. In fact much of our totals are made up of tentative gifts, the last gifts some will ever make, the small fractions of what people might give if we better understood and nurtured their motivations and everything in between. More accurate recording and complete characterizations of donors' underlying motivations will allow us to focus and customize our stewardship accordingly - and be more attuned to which fundraising practices are the most and least regenerative.

High-net-worth donors are acting more like venture capitalists. Not in the sense of writing checks for the next unicorn but in how they evaluate nonprofits: The shift: A 2023 Bank of America study found that 85% of high-net-worth donors now “expect measurable results” from their giving, compared to just 47% a decade ago. Another Bridgespan survey showed that nearly 70% of major philanthropists look for scalable models and evidence of impact before committing funds, almost identical to the screening criteria VCs use with startups. In other words: your nonprofit is being “pitched” just like a startup. What this means for you: Donors are no longer satisfied with: • “We served X families this year.” They’re asking: • “What’s the cost per outcome? How do you scale? Who’s on your leadership team? What’s your theory of change?” These are due diligence questions straight out of a VC’s playbook. The playbook shift for nonprofits: 1. Metrics over anecdotes → Replace “heartwarming story only” with “story + unit economics of impact.” 2. Growth narrative → Share not just what you did last year, but your roadmap for 3–5 years. Think in terms of market expansion (communities served), not just annual fundraising goals. 3. Board = Advisors → Highlight how your board members function like startup advisors, unlocking networks, capital, and credibility. 4. Risk transparency → Just like startups disclose risks in their decks, nonprofits that are candid about challenges gain trust with major donors. Why this works: Data shows that storytelling + data posts on LinkedIn outperform by 27% in engagement compared to generic updates . The same applies in fundraising. Pair the emotional “why” with hard “how” metrics, and you’ll unlock six- and seven-figure checks. With purpose and impact, Mario

We think donors make giving decisions rationally. The research says otherwise. 3 counterintuitive findings that should reshape your fundraising: 1. Emotions drive decisions, logic justifies them • Donors decide with their emotional brain first • They use rational arguments to explain choices already made • Emotional appeals outperform rational ones by 2:1 2. Social proof matters more than we admit • Donors are 4x more likely to give when they see peers giving • "Join others like you" messaging outperforms "be the first" appeals • Testimonials from similar donors are more persuasive than expert endorsements 3. Choice architecture determines outcomes • The options you present shape decisions more than the case you make • Default options are selected 60-80% of the time • The presence of a "decoy" option can increase selection of your target option Smart fundraisers are applying these insights by: • Leading with emotional stories, following with rational support • Making social proof visible throughout the giving process • Carefully designing giving options to guide desired outcomes What unexpected donor behavior have you observed in your work?

I just discovered the brutal truth about why 82% of our donors disappear within 12 months - and it has nothing to do with their capacity to give. Most fundraising leaders I know are obsessing over call metrics, visit counts, and dollar totals. But here's what completely shattered my assumptions: Donors don't leave because they stop caring. They leave because they stop feeling connected. This revelation became painfully personal when I discovered a client was treating donors like sophisticated ATM machines - focused on transactions, not transformations. Volume over values. Numbers over names. And wondering why retention rates were catastrophic. The wake-up call that changed everything: → 82% of donors giving under $100 vanish within a year → Even major donors ($5,000+) have only 38% retention → We don't have a fundraising problem - we have a relationship problem → The real kicker: Research shows that when we affirm donors' moral identity (not just their wallet), both giving AND retention skyrocket. The moment that haunts me: I sat with a client donor who'd been giving modest annual gifts for years. Instead of pitching an upgrade, I asked why they kept giving. Their answer broke me: "Because this place changed my life. I just never thought my gift could change someone else's." That conversation - born from listening, not asking - led to a six-figure endowment gift. Here's my new framework in action: → Replace wealth screenings with story sessions - What's the personal meaning behind their giving? → Train for emotional intelligence, not just ask strategies - How do we recognize unspoken hesitation and respond with grace? → Measure connection, not just conversion - Are donors feeling seen, heard, and valued for who they are? My confession: I used to think donor loyalty came from clever campaigns and perfect copywriting. Now I realize it comes from repeated emotional experiences that reinforce purpose, belonging, and belief. The question that's revolutionizing how I work: What if the secret to transformational giving isn't better asks, but better listening? What's the most meaningful conversation you've had with a donor that had nothing to do with money? Are you building relationships or just managing transactions? Am I overthinking this, or have we been missing the obvious solution all along? #TransformationalFundraising #DonorRetention #EmotionalIntelligence #MajorGifts #AuthenticConnection #RelationshipFundraising

I've been paying attention to how donors under 40 are engaging with nonprofits. And if your fundraising strategy was built for Boomers and Gen X, you're probably missing them entirely. Here's what I'm seeing: Younger donors aren't necessarily giving less. They're giving differently. And most nonprofit fundraising systems aren't designed for how they operate. ✅ Pattern 1: They want to give online, easily, now. If your donation process requires more than 3 clicks or doesn't work seamlessly on mobile, you're losing them. They're not going to mail a check. They're barely going to tolerate a clunky web form. One organization simplified their donation page to 2 steps on mobile. Conversions from donors under 35 increased 40%. ✅Pattern 2: They respond to peer influence more than institutional messaging. Traditional direct mail and email campaigns don't land the same way. But when someone their age shares your work on social media or texts them a link? They pay attention. The organizations reaching younger donors effectively are empowering their young supporters to fundraise on their behalf. Peer-to-peer campaigns. Social sharing tools. Making it easy to spread the word. ✅Pattern 3: They want transparency and impact proof upfront. They're researching before they give. Checking Charity Navigator. Looking at financials. Reading reviews. The "trust us, we're doing good work" approach doesn't fly. Organizations winning with this demographic are leading with data. Showing exactly where money goes. Being transparent about challenges, not just wins. ✅Pattern 4: They're less loyal to institutions, more loyal to causes. Boomers often give to the same organizations for decades. Younger donors are more likely to shift their giving based on what feels most urgent or impactful at the moment. This doesn't mean they won't be loyal, but you have to earn it constantly, not assume it. What's working: 1️⃣ Organizations that meet younger donors where they are instead of expecting them to adapt to traditional fundraising methods. 2️⃣ Mobile-first donation experiences. Social media strategies that aren't just broadcasts. Radical transparency about impact and finances. Opportunities to engage beyond just writing checks. The shift: If your donor base is aging and you're not intentionally building relationships with donors under 40, you're building a sustainability crisis. They're not going to start giving the way their parents did. We need to adapt to how they give. What's your strategy for engaging younger donors? Is it working? #youngerdonors #millennialgiving #genz #fundraisingstrategy #donorengagement #nonprofittrends #maine #nonprofits #philanthropy

You send your donors 12 funding requests per year and 2 impact updates. Then you wonder why they feel like ATMs instead of partners. Whats missing? Any communication that doesn't end with "Please give." Your donors hear from you when you need money. They don't hear from you when you're creating the impact their money makes possible. You're treating your most important relationships like a subscription service - pay up or get cut off. Meanwhile, the organizations with the highest donor retention rates flip this ratio. They send impact updates, success stories, and mission progress reports six times for every funding request. Their donors feel informed, valued, and connected to outcomes. Your donors feel solicited, used, and reduced to their giving capacity. The difference isn't just communication frequency. It's communication purpose. Your donors didn't give because they wanted to be asked for money more often. They gave because they wanted to create change in the world. Show them that change is happening. Then ask them to help create more of it. Because in fundraising, donors who feel like partners give like partners. Donors who feel like ATMs eventually stop giving altogether.