Using Data Analytics In Fundraising

How to raise $50,000 in 30 days using 7 AI prompts (you’ve never thought to use): AI won’t replace fundraisers. But fundraisers who use AI strategically will absolutely outperform the ones who don’t. These 7 prompts aren’t basic. They’re engineered to unlock human behavior, decision-making psychology, and funding at scale. 1. Prompt: “Analyze our past 10 email campaigns. Identify the emotional tone, structure, and CTA that drove the most clicks and donations. Suggest 3 new email angles based on behavioral trends.” Why it works: Donors respond to patterns. This prompt uses your own data to reverse-engineer what actually moves people, not what feels right. 2. Prompt: “Write a donor pitch using the ‘Commitment-Consistency’ principle from Cialdini, reference a donor’s past actions and show how giving now is aligned with who they already are.” Why it works: People are more likely to act in ways that align with their self-image. Donors who’ve volunteered, signed petitions, or shared your content? This is how you turn engagement into dollars. 3. Prompt: “Create a 3-part story arc for LinkedIn posts that subtly shift a corporate contact from passive observer to strategic partner, without ever asking for money.” Why it works: It’s called affinity priming. AI scripts the story. LinkedIn builds trust. You close the deal. 4. Prompt: “Generate 5 donor thank-you messages tailored by giving tier, use loss aversion and social proof to increase chances of a second gift.” Why it works: “Thank you” is a sales moment in disguise. This prompt makes it count. One client turned 23% of first-time donors into recurring givers using tiered messaging like this. 5. Prompt: “Draft a voicemail script for a lapsed donor using the Ben Franklin effect, ask for a small favor instead of a gift, to reactivate the relationship.” Why it works: People feel closer to those they help. Use it to rebuild trust without making an ask. Often, the donation follows. 6. Prompt: “Identify 3 psychological barriers to giving on our donation page. Rewrite the copy to reduce friction using clarity, scarcity, and immediacy.” Why it works: Most pages leak donations. This prompt fixes that, leading to real revenue recovery. One org tested this and saw their average donation increase from $48 to $71 just by shifting copy. 7. Prompt: “Write a short pitch that reframes our mission as a business case for corporate ESG leads, focused on risk reduction, brand lift, and employee retention.” Why it works: Companies don’t give because of charity. They give because it aligns with strategy. This prompt flips the frame, and unlocks five-figure partnerships. These are just a few of the 40+ AI scripts inside our AI Launchpad Cohort, a hands-on experience for nonprofits ready to raise more with less guesswork. Comment Launchpad and we’ll send you details about the upcoming cohort. With purpose and impact, Mario

𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄. ➡️ 7% are close but not ready yet. ➡️ 30% are way off. ➡️ 60% are highly unlikely to give at all And that's why fundraising takes time. Because you're working to your donors' timelines - they do NOT work to yours. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 - 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼: ❌ Pitch to a cold audience - the worse possible way to ask for money. ❌ Only target 3% of your addressable market - leaving 37% of givers untapped. The smart money is on - having a strategy to cultivate your FULL prospective audience. 📈 60% won't give - but could be introducers or influencers. 📈 30% are way off giving - but worth initiating a relationship while they’re still open to the idea. This is the optimal time to start those relationships. 📈 7% are open to giving and are actively planning their budgets, timelines, shortlists etc. - so your window of being on that shortlist is now starting to close. 📈 3% are hot to trot. These figures are based on the "buyer's pyramid" - think of it like the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle). Understanding that only 10% of your qualified prospects list is actually ready to give now or within your financial year - helps you to determine how long your prospect list needs to be for you to reach your target. 📌 𝗜𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 - 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿. Keeping in touch with prospects - is NOT fundraisers wasting their time on people who are not willing to give. It is fundraisers investing their time appropriately with people who are not ready YET. Because - "not yet" does not mean "no". It means, stay in touch - you have a warm prospect who is going to move along the timeline into the "ready to give now" bracket. 📌 𝗣𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘄 - 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝘁𝗼 𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁.  𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝟰𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹���𝘆. This is also why you need to retain and trade up your existing donors (new business can be achieved by growing the donors you already have alongside new donors). A combination of - retention, trading up existing donors, new business and initiating relationships with the "not ready yet crowd" - is how you grow a sustainable donor base. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘂𝗽..... 😀

You spent $15,000 to acquire 100 new donors who gave an average of $75 each. Your 'successful' campaign lost $7,500. Here's the math your board presentation didn't include: Campaign cost: $15,000 New donor revenue: $7,500 Year one result: -$7,500 But acquisition is an investment, right? Let's look at year two. With your 45% retention rate, 55 donors won't give again. The remaining 45 donors need to average $167 each just to break even on your two-year investment. Now consider this alternative: Your database contains 200 lapsed donors who previously gave $200 annually. A $3,000 reactivation campaign targeting these former supporters could realistically bring back 40 donors at their historical giving levels. That's $8,000 in year one revenue from a $3,000 investment - a $5,000 profit instead of a $7,500 loss. The insight isn't that donor acquisition is bad. It's that donor acquisition without profitability analysis is expensive guesswork. Your most profitable growth strategy might not be finding new donors. It might be reconnecting with the ones who already know and trust your mission. The question isn't whether you can afford to invest in donor acquisition. It's whether you can afford not to measure whether that investment actually pays off. Because in fundraising, the most successful campaigns aren't always the ones that acquire the most donors. They're the ones that generate the most profit.

You've sent 200 cold emails and gotten 3 VC meetings. You've had 30 first meetings and zero second meetings. You can still raise, but you first need to get strategic about what you fix. Fundraising has a funnel, just like sales. First-time founders should think of that funnel in three stages: 1. Top of funnel - getting the meeting 2. Middle of funnel - going from first meeting → due diligence 3. Bottom of funnel - close (i.e., getting a check) When I raised for Chezie, I had challenges at each stage. Here's how to debug your fundraising process: TOP OF FUNNEL: Getting the meeting Common challenges: - You send hundreds of cold emails but can’t get investor meetings What's probably happening: → You aren’t prioritizing warm intros → You aren’t describing your company in a way that shows market size or urgency → You're targeting the wrong investors (wrong stage/sector) What to do instead: → Stop cold emailing; always try for a warm intro first. If you don’t have a direct contact, ask a friend of a friend. → Only contact investors that invest in AT LEAST two of the following: your geography, your industry, or your stage MIDDLE OF FUNNEL: Progressing to Due Diligence Common challenge: - Lots of first meetings, no second meetings What's probably happening: → You're not getting investors excited enough What to do instead: - Focus on the big vision; tell the investor what the world looks like if you’re successful. - Find ways to demonstrate that you’re building what COULD be a billion-dollar business - Ask directly: "Do you want to learn more, or are you passing?” Bonus pro tip: Never send more than two follow-ups to VCs. If they don’t respond after the second, it’s a pass. Keep it pushing. BOTTOM OF FUNNEL: Close Common challenges: - Investors seem interested but won't commit (e.g., "We like it but want to see more traction") - The process drags on for weeks without a firm ‘yes’ or ‘no’ What's probably happening: → There’s no lead investor to create momentum → You haven't built urgency around the round What to do instead: - If possible, get at least one check before you formally start raising (even if it’s from friends and family or an accelerator). This builds urgency. - Give investors a reasonable deadline for a decision Bonus protip 2: If the investor passes, ask for reasons. Usually, at this stage in the funnel, they will share feedback that you can use to improve your pitch for future investors. - - - Each stage of your fundraising funnel tells you exactly what to fix, but 95% of founders try to brute force it by simply sending more emails. Your fundraising challenges aren't random. They're predictable (and fixable). Which stage is giving you the most trouble? Drop it in the comments and I'll help you debug it 🤝🏾

📈 The 7 steps GTMfund took to fundraise $50M+ (and the most transparent breakdown you'll find)👇 Just this month, we announced GTMfund II – our second venture fund, oversubscribed at $54M in one of the toughest fundraising markets in decades. The first 3 months of fundraising were a grind. Cold outreach flopped. Intros stalled. The usual playbooks didn't work. So we completely changed our strategy. These are the 7 steps that helped us close $50M+, plus the lessons learning along the way (and some bonus reflective quotes). Scott Barker broke this down in the latest The GTM Newsletter edition. Step by step, exactly how we did it. The TL;DR of the playbook: 1️⃣ Nail your positioning If your value prop isn’t crystal clear, you’re dead in the water. Show, don’t tell. We offered GTM support to investors before they even wrote a check. 2️⃣ Build a hyper-targeted LP list Fundraising is like enterprise sales – you need an ICP. We mapped out every serious investor category and focused where we had the strongest fit. 3️⃣ Scale warm introductions Cold outreach flopped. Warm intros converted 10x higher, so we built a system to unlock them at scale. 4️⃣ Make the first meeting count Skip the deck. Be curious. Understand their goals first, then tailor the conversation. 5️⃣ Master the diligence process  Investors want proof. We preemptively built data, testimonials, and case studies to reduce friction at every step. 6️⃣ Stay top of mind (without being annoying) Follow-up isn’t “just checking in.” It’s adding value. Share market insights, make intros, and invite them into your world. 7️⃣ Build momentum and FOMO The last checks always come in fastest. We strategically shared wins – new LPs, big markups, portfolio momentum – to drive urgency. This is just the TL;DR. The full edition of The GTM Newsletter dives deeper into how we built trust, created demand, and closed in a brutal market. Raising a fund isn’t so different from raising for a startup, or even selling into the enterprise. The same rules apply. → Build trust. Provide value. Make the right ask at the right time. We hope that this transparency helps fund managers, founders, and enterprise sellers navigate their own capital-raising journey. -- ✍ Full details on the 7 steps GTMfund took to raise $50M+ in The GTM Newsletter (in comments). 💡 To get more weekly growth & go-to-market insights, join 50k+ other GTM leaders, founders and VCs in GTMnow by subscribing on the website or Substack.

Could social media help raise $5.5M in just 24 hours? The The University of Georgia's annual Dawg Day of Giving campaign rallies students, alumni, and supporters to donate in a single day. High stakes, 100+ social posts to manage, and a small team of three strategists covering 400,000+ people. This year, they 5x'd their social-attributed revenue. How? They listened before they posted. Using social intelligence, they tracked real-time conversations across the Georgia Bulldogs community - fan-generated content, emotional alumni moments, trending topics they would've missed otherwise. They turned those insights into content that resonated. Their analytics revealed something counterintuitive: static image carousels were outperforming video. So they stopped pouring resources into video production and doubled down on what was working. Data killed their initial assumptions. And they were able to generate better results with less effort. The outcome: → $5.5M raised in 24 hours → 522% increase in revenue attributed to social → 54% YoY increase in digital giving revenue → 1M+ Instagram views on a single campaign Social isn't just a brand awareness play. When you combine listening with data-driven content, it becomes a revenue engine. What business impact could your organization be driving with social?

AI is only as powerful as the problems it solves. For nonprofits, one of the most fundamental challenges is knowing how much to ask for, and when. Ask too high, and you risk discouraging a gift. Ask too low, and you leave potential impact on the table. That’s why we’ve taken Intelligent Ask Amounts to the next level for GoFundMe Pro partners. Grounded in deep user research and powered by GoFundMe’s AI models, this improved version gives nonprofits the ability to dynamically optimize campaigns for what matters most: one-time revenue, conversions, recurring gifts, or a balanced mix. The ask amounts adapt in real time to donor behavior and campaign goals—helping nonprofits drive more sustainable giving. The best part? These improvements are to a product that has already delivered results. For example: the National Civil Rights Museum used Intelligent Ask Amounts during key giving moments and saw a 62% increase in average gift size on December 31st year-over-year, along with other strong gains. (I’ll link the case study with more details in the comments!) What makes me proud isn’t just the AI, it’s the teamwork behind it. Three product pods, Applied Science, Research, CX, Legal, Marketing, Comms and more all came together to turn a complex fundraising challenge into a solution that’s both powerful and practical. Because at the end of the day, innovation is only meaningful when it helps nonprofits raise more with less friction—so they can focus on their mission. 👉 Learn more here: https://gfme.co/47CvtSc 

One year ago, my team set out with a simple but ambitious idea: could a Virtual Engagement Officer engage donors independently and deliver meaningful results? Today, with more than 70,000 donors managed, the answer is yes. The scale of Autonomous Fundraising is remarkable—and among the most compelling reasons is the quantifiable data. With a wide spectrum of use cases and organizations across nonprofit verticals, sizes, geographies, and donor demographics, we can now confidently answer a common question: which donors respond best to Autonomous Fundraising? What strikes me is how the data confirms certain assumptions and challenges others. When the goal is dollars in the door, recency matters more than giving capacity: •Over 88% of the top-dollar donors engaged by a VEO had lapsed no more than one year. •Only 9% had lapsed more than three years. •A current $500 donor is often a better bet than a $1,000 donor last seen five years ago. As a fundraiser, this isn’t surprising at all. While we all have stories of long-lapsed or first-time donors suddenly surfacing with major gifts, they’re far less statistically likely in both traditional and autonomous fundraising. The best performing portfolios consider both today’s revenue and tomorrow’s prospects, balanced with: •75% current donors with upgrade potential.  •25% recently lapsed donors with strong giving history. That mix consistently surfaces donors ready to graduate into a gift officer’s portfolio. Demographically, donors between ages 50–72 show the highest engagement and strongest giving. Donors who reply, click, and open messages—even modestly—become some of the most loyal over time. Of those who readily engage with the VEO, nearly 50% have given at least once, and more than 25% have made multiple gifts since being assigned to a VEO portfolio. The VEO’s purpose is to strengthen connections that lead to giving, and this data shows it is delivering on that promise. These patterns hold across very different contexts—from organizations with hundreds of thousands of active donors to smaller nonprofits with only a few thousand. More importantly, they provide a framework for designing portfolios aligned to specific goals: immediate revenue, building tomorrow’s pipeline, or re-engaging donors during the window when they’re statistically most likely to return. One year in, the lesson is clear: many donors thrive in Autonomous Fundraising portfolios, and now we know who they are. The bigger opportunity is what comes next. With 97.5% of donors traditionally unmanaged, this framework gives us a way to reach them with the attention they deserve—and a foundation for exploring how strategies evolve, how donor perception shifts, and how growth carries forward into year two.

My nonprofits in the community - are you planning a donor survey in the next two months? Here are some examples of how you can ensure that the data does not sit silently in your work folders but actually lets it help you take meaningful actions. Example 1: Say your survey question is: "How likely are you to continue donating to our organization in the next year?" ● Data says: If 60% of donors say they are "very likely" to continue donating, but 30% are "somewhat likely" and 10% are "unlikely," this indicates a potential drop-off in donor retention. ● Turning that data into action: Focus retention efforts on the "somewhat likely" group. Create a targeted campaign that re-engages these donors by highlighting recent successes, impact stories, or new initiatives they might care about. Additionally, reach out to the "unlikely" group to understand their concerns and see if any issues can be addressed. Example 2: Say your survey question is: "Which of the following areas do you believe your donation has the most impact?" ● Data says: 50% of respondents say their donation has the most impact on "Education Programs," while only 10% say "Healthcare Initiatives." ● Turning that data into action: Understand the why and promote the success and need for your "Healthcare Initiatives" more prominently, aiming to increase donor awareness and support in this underfunded area. Example 3: Say your survey question is: "What is your primary reason for donating to our organization?" ● Data says: If the top reason to engage is "Alignment with my values" (40%) followed by "Transparency in how funds are used" (35%). ● Turning that data into action: Emphasize your organization's values and transparency in all communications. Regularly update donors on how their funds are being used with clear, detailed reports, and align your messaging with the core values that resonate with your donor base. Example 4: Say your survey question is: "How satisfied are you with the level of communication you receive from our organization?" ● Data says: If 70% of donors are "satisfied", 20% are "neutral," and 10% are "dissatisfied," there's room for improvement in communication. ● Turning that data into action: Understand the "neutral" and "dissatisfied" groups to pinpoint where communication may be lacking. This could involve increasing the frequency of updates, personalizing communications, or providing more opportunities for donor feedback and engagement. Sit with the data you collect. Read the numbers. Read the stories. Read the hopes, barriers, and interests of those humans in your data. The best possibility of a survey is to make the humans in that data feel included and belong by listening and acting on their perspectives. Co-create change with your community in those surveys. #nonprofits #nonprofitleadership #community #inclusion

Most founders pitch their startup like a Swiss Army knife. 'We help everyone with everything!' Then wonder why investors pass. The fundraising focus problem: What founders say: 'Our platform works for SMBs, enterprises, healthcare, fintech, and education.' What investors hear: 'We don't know who our customer is.' The brutal truth about fundraising: Investors don't fund solutions that serve everyone. They fund solutions that dominate someone. Why focus wins in fundraising: Clearer story 'We're the CRM for dental practices' vs. 'We're a flexible CRM platform' Easier to evaluate Investors can assess market size and competition Believable execution: You can realistically capture 10% of dentists. You can't capture 10% of 'businesses.' Referable: 'You should talk to the dental CRM people' vs. 'You should talk to... that CRM company?' The focused pitch framework: Who: Exactly who you serve (not who you could serve) What: The specific problem you solve for them Why now: Why this market is ready for your solution Why you: Why you're uniquely positioned to win this specific market The expansion story comes later: 'We start with dentists, then expand to all healthcare practices.' Not: 'We work for healthcare, but also retail, and manufacturing...' Remember: Niche is not limiting. Niche is competitive advantage. For more frameworks on crafting focused fundraising narratives that investors actually fund, get my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gazdRuQQ