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 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄��𝗲𝗻 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

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

One of my nonprofit clients...a homeless service and addiction recover ministry, lost over $1 Million in a single year because of a strategic mistake. Years ago I was called by the CEO of one of my ministry clients and asked to come meet with him and his board chair to discuss a critical concern. They'd discovered they had lost $1 Million in fundraising revenue that year, and had no idea why it happened. As we reviewed the data together, we uncovered what we thought might be the problem. There were 3,000 donors who had each given between $1,000 and $1,500 in the prior year. However, many of them did not give in the subsequent year. We dug deeper to figure out what might have changed year-over-year. Then we discovered the culprit. A well-meaning fundraiser on the team was researching potential major donors. The fundraiser identified these 3,000 donors as great prospects, and as such, decided to remove them from the organization's monthly mailing program. Her plan was to share those donor records amongst her colleagues so that they could all engage in personal outreach in hopes of moving these generous givers into personal relationship-based giving. Unfortunately, each gift officer (including the one who did this) already had full portfolios of engaged donors. What happened in the following year is that these 3,000 donors were put aside because they weren't giving enough yet to get the attention of the fundraising team. But they had already been removed from the monthly mail program. Effectively, the organization isolated them and stopped talking to them entirely. These decisions caused many of these donors to lapse or to downgrade their giving year-over-year, ultimately costing this ministry $1 Million. Many of these donors never came back, and those that did stick around didn't continue giving at the same levels. This is a cautionary tale for all of us. It's not wrong to move donors out of your mail program or to change their mail frequency. But you can't do that and assume that nothing will change in their behavior. If you aren't able to deliver a better, more consistent experience for donors by removing them from your ongoing communications, it's best to leave them right where they are.

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?

The donor drop IS NOT your fault. How you're responding to it might be. I keep getting messages and email from nonprofits saying some version of: "we're getting fewer donors, but dollars are up - whats' wrong?" OR "we're seeing more activity in our mid-level program... but we really need more donors. What's happening?" It's OK! The data shows this is happening across the board. The K-shaped economy has split America in two. Life Time Fitness and Planet Fitness both had interesting years. But Life Time's affluent members absorbed price increases and spent more while Planet Fitness's price-sensitive members are showing signs of strain, and their 2026 outlook missed expectations (they've since introduced a top-tier membership). Airlines. Fast food chains. Gyms. TD Bank economists have a name for it: the K-shaped economy. The top keeps climbing. The bottom bends down. It's not a generosity issue. It's cash-to-burn issue. Donors are just consumers, and nonprofits are just another place to spend money. Fewer small donors coming through the door. One-time gift sizes shrinking. Mid and major donors giving more. Overall revenue holding, sometimes even growing, while acquisition softens. This isn't a NONPROFIT problem. It's an economy problem. You didn't cause it. But your response to it is yours to own. Here's what the data says: 1️⃣ Stop optimizing for the first gift. The Fundraise Up Pulse of the Donor report shows social donors are converting to recurring giving at twice the rate of email donors. The donors coming in through channels you've written off as "low value" are building your most committed recurring base. Are you set up to capture that? 2️⃣ Rebuild your small donor strategy around commitment, not transaction size. Average gift sizes are down, but recurring enrollment is growing. A $25 monthly donor is worth more than a $100 one-time gift. If your checkout experience, your ask strings, and your follow-up sequences aren't built around that math, fix them. 3️⃣ Reinvest in your mid and major donor pipeline. This is where the K-shape works in your favor. These donors have capacity and they're giving more. If you've been underresourcing this segment because small donor volume felt safer, now is the time to rebalance. You have to keep pipeline going - but the problem then is "how do I prioritize this pipeline"... make it easier on yourself and apply predictive and propensity scoring to your CRM (Dataro can help, DM me) to put this on autopilot. The economy shifted, the donor behavior shifted. The data is telling you exactly what changed and exactly where to go. But the sector needs to stop asking itself "what's wrong with our ORG?", look up from the sidewalk, and see that this is everywhere, and respond to it. I think this needs an article... I have more thoughts.

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

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

Donor generosity hasn’t collapsed. Donor decision-making has changed. Much of the sector narrative around the cost-of-living crisis still frames donor behaviour as a story of decline. • Less money. • More pressure. • Reduced generosity. That reading is understandable — but it’s also incomplete. What has changed most significantly over the past few years is not whether people care, but how they decide. Supporters have become more deliberate. They are: ➡️Thinking harder before committing ➡️Reviewing existing donations more actively ➡️Making fewer, more intentional choices This doesn’t look like generosity disappearing. It looks like discernment increasing. For years, many fundraising models relied — implicitly — on frictionless generosity: 👉Low-effort decisions 👉Standing orders that quietly rolled on 👉Emotional prompts that converted quickly Economic pressure has disrupted that dynamic. When household finances feel tighter, every outgoing becomes visible. Donations are no longer background noise — they are conscious expressions of identity and values. This is why some charities are experiencing: • Fewer donations, but higher average gifts • Strong engagement from a smaller supporter base • Increased questions, scrutiny and comparison None of this suggests donors care less. It suggests they are choosing more carefully. The risk for charities is misdiagnosis. If this shift is interpreted as apathy or fatigue, the response tends to be: Louder messaging More urgency Increased emotional pressure But if it is understood as a move towards deliberation, the response needs to be very different. This is not a temporary behavioural blip. It is a structural shift in how supporters relate to giving. And it requires a fundamentally different kind of fundraising confidence.