Measuring Success In Fundraising Efforts

I didn’t fully appreciate the gravity of this report until a conversation with a veteran fundraiser a few weeks ago 🗣️ They told me that they didn’t mind if a donor used a DAF, but why would they ever mention it or encourage it? 🤷🏼♂️ They felt like a DAF just introduced another party into the relationship between a nonprofit and their donor, that disconnected the experience. 🚪 But 2 things changed their mind: 1️⃣ The DAF Fundraising report showed that not only are DAF donors making 19x bigger gifts, more often, at a 15pt higher retention rate 😮 It showed, across more than 16,000 instances, that if the exact same donor that gave with a credit card last year started using a DAF this year to support the same organization, their annual support increased 96%, on average 🧨 2️⃣ DAFpay, Chariots 3-click DAF payment option, reconnects the donor’s giving experience directly with the nonprofit through their own donation forms 🙏🏽 The donor can fully participate in an organization’s carefully curated digital experience, and the nonprofit automatically records the gift size and donor details in real time ⚡️ A DAF donor can now be thanked immediately, properly segmented and optimally engaged to maximize relationships with these high value donors 💞 That same skeptical fundraiser said the advances in research and technology have fully changed their point of view - and their strategy 🌟 There’s no longer any benefit from shying away from DAFs. Nonprofits that embrace and encourage DAF giving are going to reap the benefits of more sustainable fundraising revenue for years to come 📈 I predict that the sector will be forever changed by these findings, especially as we expand the scope of the research next year 🌅 We don’t need to keep arguing or pointing fingers about DAFs. Let’s all work together to activate the $230 billion that is already set aside for giving, while continuing to grow the capital committed for giving 🔋 Thank you to the many people and organizations that made this report possible - we are incredibly energized for the work to come accelerating more philanthropy 💪🏽 #nonprofit #fundraising #philanthropy 

In 2025, AI is changing the fundraising playbook. Small teams armed with AI are raising MASSIVE rounds. Here's what's really happening: ✔️ Speed over size: Small teams make decisions in hours, not weeks. No layers of approval means they adapt to market changes instantly. ✔️ Hyper-focused innovation: While giants juggle multiple business lines, small teams solve ONE specific problem brilliantly. Investors love this clarity. ✔️ Equal access to AI tools: The playing field has leveled. Tools that once required millions in resources are now accessible to everyone. ✔️ Efficiency at scale: AI handles routine tasks while humans focus on strategy. Small teams can do what used to require 5x the headcount. I'm seeing this everywhere: Cursor: $100M ARR with <20 people in 21 months Midjourney: $200M ARR with 10 people in 2 years ElevenLabs: $100M ARR with 50 people in 2 years What does this mean for founders raising capital? Investors aren't just looking at team size anymore... they're looking at how strategically you use AI to maximize output. Your fundraising pitch needs to show HOW you're leveraging AI to do more with less. This is the new competitive advantage VCs are hunting for. The most successful startups I work with aren't just using AI... they're building their entire operational model around it. Anyone else noticing this trend?

Welcome to the Future of Fundraising. In the first year of Autonomous Fundraising, my team and I observed that donors were consistently increasing their giving after working with the Virtual Engagement Officer. Now, beyond just observation, the data is providing definitive proof that trusted digital labor fundamentally changes what’s possible for our organizations. Across more than 100 Virtual Engagement Officers, we're seeing something remarkable. When a donor makes a gift under VEO management, almost one third of them are increasing their giving. And, when they increase giving, they're doing it by an average of 40%. This is not just engagement or cultivation or discovery work, it’s all of these that combine to result in direct revenue acceleration. What makes this even more significant is that the VEO has now raised more than $4 million, and $1 million of that comes directly from upgraded gifts. A quarter of all revenue generated by the VEO comes from donors who have decided to deepen their commitment after autonomous, 1:1, engagement. But the data point that I'm most proud to see is that 99.5% of donors with increased giving remain in VEO portfolios. This reveals something fundamental about Autonomous Fundraising versus AI Enablement. AI Enablement tools help existing fundraisers work more efficiently - drafting emails, prioritizing prospects, analyzing data. They're designed to help your current team do more with the capacity they already have. Autonomous Fundraising creates new capacity entirely. VEOs don't just identify donors who should be in someone's portfolio - they own the portfolio. They have the conversations that inspire upgrades. They deepen relationships between donors and nonprofits. And our Innovation Partners see that these donor relationships are sustainably managed by VEOs, with no need to be transferred. This is what happens when we stop asking "how can AI help fundraisers reach more donors" and start asking "how can AI expand the fundraising team itself." Autonomous Fundraising doesn’t put more pressure on a human team’s capacity. These are hundreds of sustained relationships generating real revenue growth - $1 million worth of it - that simply wouldn't exist without this capacity. The pattern holds across institutions of all types and sizes. The upgrade rate is consistent. The retention is consistent. The revenue growth is consistent. This isn't about individual success stories, it's systematic proof that Autonomous Fundraising can augment what our traditional gift officers do, provide strategic and personalized attention that naturally leads to giving – but at scale. If you're looking at your own donor make and thinking about the donors who could upgrade with the right attention, you're asking the question that led to this data, and Autonomous Fundraising matters. Every organization deserves this kind of capacity.

Turning results into action! The Importance of Post-Campaign Reports Working on a campaign report post-completion is essential to get a clear picture of how the campaign performed. Did it meet the expectations or hit the desired numbers? This is where we evaluate the successes, uncover learnings, and identify areas for improvement. A well-structured report helps us grow, optimize future strategies, and ensure we're delivering the best possible results every time. There are several reasons as to why we need a post campaign report- 1. Performance Evaluation- It measures the success of the campaign against key metrics like reach, engagement, conversions, and ROI. 2. Client Insights- It helps clients understand how well the campaign met their objectives and expectations, showcasing value delivered. 3. Learning and Optimization- By analyzing what worked and what didn’t, you can optimize future campaigns and strategies for better outcomes. 4. Transparency and Accountability- A detailed report builds trust with stakeholders by showing transparent results and justifying the investment. 5. Data-Driven Decisions- It provides concrete data for making informed decisions in upcoming marketing strategies or campaigns #CampaignPerformance #MarketingStrategy #LearningAndGrowth

Your fundraising event raised $50,000. Success, right? Maybe. But maybe not. Standard event metrics often miss the full picture: - Dollars raised ÷ Attendees = $500/person But what about the value of relationships built? - Net revenue after expenses = $35,000 But how much staff time did it really take? - New donors acquired = 15 But did existing donors deepen their commitment? Even when resources are tight, some teams are starting to track: 📊 Relationship-based metrics - Meaningful conversations with major gift prospects - Signs of increased donor interest or trust - Referrals or introductions from attendees 📈 Long-term revenue indicators - Giving increases 6–12 months post-event - Retention rates of attendees vs. non-attendees - New names added to your major gifts pipeline 💬 Mission advancement signs - New ambassadors or advocates identified - Improved understanding of your mission (pre/post) - Compelling stories gathered for future use The most valuable outcomes of your events often don’t show up in the final revenue report. What metrics do you track to measure success beyond dollars raised?

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

My friend Shannon Roberts just shared a study from Frontegg about login friction—and I haven’t stopped thinking about how it applies to fundraising. 👉 83% of users have abandoned an account or service because they couldn’t remember a password. 👉 68% never signed up in the first place because the process was too frustrating. That’s not just a tech stat. That’s a donor experience red flag. These frustrated users? They’re our donors, too. We spend months writing perfect copy, crafting great stories, building compelling asks— …and then we lose the gift because the form was confusing. …or the survey asked questions the donor couldn’t answer right away. …or they couldn’t reset a password. …or we made it feel like work. I’ve been there. I cancelled my The Baltimore Sun subscription when they required a Facebook login to read an article. I haven’t logged into Facebook in years. After 25+ years, I’m walking away from Diners Club International because getting support was nearly impossible. And don’t get me started on forms that reject “$25.00” or “April 22, 2025.” Seriously—if your system can’t reformat a number or date, it’s not the donor’s fault. But this isn’t just about digital. It’s why we include self-addressed, often postage-paid envelopes in direct mail. Why we answer obvious questions before the donor asks. Why we invest in donor relations—not just to fix problems, but to prevent them. Whether it’s a donation form or a reply envelope, our job is to make giving easy. When someone feels moved to give, the worst thing we can do is slow them down. Let them give. Thank them. Then show them what their gift made possible. That’s it. #Fundraising #DonorExperience #NonprofitLeadership #FrictionKillsGenerosity #DigitalFundraising #DirectMail #EngageUSA

#WednesdayWisdom Most nonprofits won't get to choose whether they deal with AI. The only real choice is whether you do it strategically or reactively. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗜 looks like this: A peer organization announces an "AI-powered donor platform." Your board asks, "Why aren't we doing this?" You rush to buy a tool so you can say you're "doing AI." The result? Tools that don't fit your workflows. Staff who were never brought along. Budget tied up in tech that quietly creates more work instead of freeing capacity. I've watched this pattern repeat across nonprofits and foundations including some of the most sophisticated organizations on paper. 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜 adoption feels very different: ✔️ You map where staff time actually goes and name your mission bottlenecks. ✔️ You choose one workflow where automation would create the highest mission ROI. ✔️ You bring staff in early as co-designers, not passive recipients. ✔️ You pilot small, measure honestly, and expand based on real results. ✔️ You build board literacy around capacity, risk, and governance — not just technology trends. Take the American Cancer Society's approach: in a 2022 fundraising campaign, they used machine learning to optimize ad strategy—driving donation revenue 𝟭𝟭𝟳% above benchmark and engagement rates of nearly 𝟳𝟬% on their rich media units. Their Director of Media Strategy put it plainly: "Every bit of our campaign spend needs to be optimized for the best possible performance." That's strategic AI starting with a clear mission outcome and building the technology around it. Before you sign a contract or add another tool to your stack, ask your leadership team: → Where is manual work currently limiting our mission delivery? → What would become possible if we reclaimed 10 hours per week of staff capacity? → Which staff, board, and partners need to be in this conversation from day one? → What does success look like in mission terms, not technology terms? This is the foundation I build with executive teams when we design AI roadmaps together, so AI becomes a 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗴𝗶𝗳𝘁, not a 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁. If you're feeling that "do something with AI" pressure but don't have a clear first step, DM me with "ROADMAP" (or drop it in the comments). I'll share the framework I walk EDs, C-suite leaders, and boards through in our AI readiness sessions. Your mission is too important to automate on autopilot.

Of Data And Fundraising Delusions How do we explain the juxtaposition of these two facts: 1. Data is giving us greater insight into philanthropic behavior than ever before. 2. Donor attrition, at a national level and at the level experienced by the vast majority of nonprofits, continues to climb. Could it be that too many organizations: Are using the data to pursue the most obvious short-term support but not to analyze and respond to the causes of growing donor disconnection? Have turned to firms that help them crunch data but can't show them how that data can be used to strengthen human connection? Could it be too few organizations: Understand the importance of hiring emotionally intelligent leaders who will seek data that will allow their organizations to build stronger bonds with their donors through more considerate listening and conscientious responding, or to use available data to gain greater insight into the animating passion of each donor they encounter? Fail to realize they have bought more sophisticated records management systems then populated them with facts that support transactional fundraising but fall short of what is necessary for more adept philanthropic facilitation? Doesn't the data answer those questions for us in no uncertain terms? Data, in and of itself, doesn’t, can’t, and won’t improve fundraising efficiency. Data -when framed by and filtered though emotional intelligence - can, does and will.

You think the number of dollars you raise determines the value of your impact. It's actually an indicator of your donor development strategies, not your mission effectiveness. This misconception causes more organizational dysfunction than almost any other belief in the nonprofit sector. I regularly hear nonprofit leaders say things like "We only raised $500,000 last year, so we're not as valuable as the organization down the street that raised $2 million." That's backwards thinking. The amount of money you raise tells me exactly one thing: how effectively you've built donor relationships and executed fundraising strategies. It tells me nothing about whether you're solving important problems or creating meaningful change. Some of the most impactful organizations I know are terrible at fundraising. They're changing lives, transforming communities, and addressing critical needs - but they can't articulate their value to donors or build sustainable revenue systems. Meanwhile, some organizations with mediocre programs raise millions because they've mastered donor cultivation, storytelling, and relationship building. The money follows the messaging and the relationships, not necessarily the impact. This is why organizations with identical missions and similar program quality can have completely different revenue levels. It's not because one is more valuable than the other - it's because one has figured out how to communicate their value and build donor loyalty. Your fundraising results reflect your fundraising competence, not your mission importance. Stop using revenue as a measure of organizational worth. Start using it as a measure of fundraising effectiveness. The goal isn't to raise money because that proves you matter. The goal is to raise money because your impact matters and you need resources to scale it. Because in fundraising, bigger doesn't equal better - it equals better funded through better donor development strategies.