Know your donors, raise more

Melaina Chromy: Welcome, everyone. We are so excited to be with you today for Bloomerang’s Giving Signals webinar.

Rachel Muir: Welcome. Welcome.

Melaina Chromy: Looks like we have people joining us here. Awesome. Well, I don’t know where you’re tuning in from — here in Chattanooga, it is quite hot. So go ahead while we wait for our attendee count to go up: chime in the chat where you’re tuning in from, and if you’re also facing a summer heat wave like I am.

Seattle, Washington. Oh, Mexico — very cool. Ottawa, that’s great.

I know, Rachel is from Texas and was just telling me — what were you saying? It feels like winter, it’s only eighty. I was like, what?

Rachel Muir: It’s eighty degrees, and it’s cloudy, and it’s nonstop rain. And it’s funny, because my girlfriend has a sweater, and I’m like, I wish I had that cashmere sweater. It’s pretty cold right now.

Melaina Chromy: Eighty is really cold for a Texan in the summer. Mid-July, eighty — that’s like, oh my god, it’s like a cold front came in.

Rachel Muir: Yeah. I used to live in Florida, and that was very much the reality. You would definitely notice things were a little cooler.

Melaina Chromy: How long has it been since you left Florida?

Rachel Muir: It’s been eight years. You adjust very, very quickly. We went back for a wedding one summer, and I was like, I can’t handle this anymore.

Melaina Chromy: Oh, man.

Well, I am gonna go ahead and get started here today. So welcome, everybody, to our Bloomerang webinar on the Giving Signals report.

A few housekeeping notes before we get started: we are recording this webinar, so everyone will get a copy of the recording delivered to their inbox — please keep an eye on your email. If you have any questions as we go through today’s content, please type and submit them in the Zoom Q&A chat. That way, Rachel and I can get to your questions at the end of today’s session — things tend to get a little buried in the regular chat.

So, a little bit about us. First, if you’re not familiar with Bloomerang: Bloomerang is a giving platform built specifically for nonprofits. We’re designed to help nonprofits raise more and build stronger relationships with their supporters. Practically, that looks like a CRM, volunteer management tools, and fundraising tools — online donation forms, peer-to-peer software, auctions, you name it. If you’re interested in learning more, there will be a poll at the end of today’s webinar where you can opt in for us to follow up with you.

Now, about the people here today — obviously you’ve heard Rachel and I chitchatting. My name is Melaina Chromy. I’m Bloomerang’s senior brand marketing manager. I’ve been with Bloomerang for just over seven years now, kind of crazy. Before coming to Bloomerang, I was a fundraiser myself within higher education and annual giving specifically, so I am very much still a direct mail nerd at heart — I save every piece I receive.

And joining me today is none other than the fabulous Rachel Muir. Rachel is a nonprofit founder and consultant, and she runs a really special group called the League of Extraordinary Fundraisers. Everybody, join me in welcoming Rachel today.

Rachel Muir: I’m so excited to be here. We’re gonna have such a great time.

Melaina Chromy: Yeah. So let’s dive in — today we’re gonna be covering key findings from Bloomerang’s Giving Signals report.

What motivated us to do this report was all of the headlines and different news we’ve been hearing about in the nonprofit sector over the last year. Donations declining, trust fraying in nonprofits, and funding challenges. So we wanted to actually talk to donors and see what they’re perceiving and how they’re responding.

We talked to over a thousand active donors and over four hundred fundraising decision-makers, and a more optimistic vision came through. What we uncovered is that generosity itself is not fading. Trust in nonprofits is not eroding. What’s changed is not the impulse to give — that desire very much still exists — but the way donors are signaling what makes them say yes.

Luckily for us, we are gonna be diving into some of those signals today, and what motivates donors to give. I hope we all walk away here today with some very practical takeaways, so you can raise more and better connect with your donors — and hopefully feel a bit more optimistic about your fundraising and the sector when we leave.

So here’s what we’ll dive into. We’ll start with identity and giving — the data shows something very interesting about why people give. Then we’ll talk about millennial potential — this generation is very engaged right now, and we found some interesting things in the report, but we’ll make sure the findings we discuss don’t just relate to one generation; these are findings that’ll help you raise more across the board. Then we’ll talk about moving donors from intention to action — a practical section where we talk about transparency and storytelling — and we’ll close with some tips on what to focus on next. And, like I mentioned, we’ll leave time for Q&A at the end, so if you have questions as we go, please submit them in the Q&A box.

So let’s start with why people actually give. We asked donors in the Giving Signals report, “What motivates you to give?” The results were pretty interesting: 97% said caring about their community motivates them, 96% said wanting to make a difference, 96% said caring about the future. And the one I really want us to hold onto, that we’re gonna talk more about today, is that 92% say giving is just part of who they are. Not “I give because I have capacity” or “I give because I have funds” — 92% of donors say giving is an expression of their identity. The least-selected motivator for giving was “I have money to give.” I think the implication here is pretty interesting: giving is not primarily a rational decision, it’s a values-led act shaped by identity and purpose, and that should shape how we talk to our donors.

Now, when we talk about belonging and identity specifically, we found some interesting generational nuance I want to touch on briefly. We found that 97% of millennials are motivated to give so they can feel a part of something, compared to 80% of Gen X and 87% of baby boomers. That may not feel like the biggest difference, but when we looked at who strongly agreed with that statement, the generational gap widened: 57% of millennials strongly agreed, versus 33% of baby boomers-plus. So belonging isn’t just a mild preference for your younger donors — for many of them it’s a core emotional driver in why they give, and it shows up in their behavior and choices.

Another thing we dived into, which we know is shaping a lot of nonprofits’ reality this year and last, is pullbacks in federal funding. We found that 91% of donors believe people need help more than ever right now, and 91% believe nonprofits have an important role to play in addressing gaps left by reduced federal funding. So I want to offer a little encouragement here: our donors are paying attention to what’s happening in the world. They see the moment we’re in, and they do believe that what you do is essential — not a nice-to-have, but necessary. The question is not whether donors care — they do care. The question is whether our message is reaching them where they are.

And with that, I’m gonna turn it over to Rachel.

Rachel Muir: Yay. So my favorite thing about this study that Bloomerang did was that it brought up belonging and identity, and the importance of belonging and identity in fundraising. And what better way than to introduce the world’s first philanthropic psychologist, Dr. Jen Shang. Dr. Jen Shang and Adrian Sargent are the founders of the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy.

I’m gonna invite you all to type into the chat if you’ve heard the term “philanthropic psychology,” or heard of Jen Shang or Adrian Sargent — just say yes.

Okay, great, a lot of folks are saying yes — I’d say about half and half. I’m excited that most of you are familiar with this, and if you’re not, you can check them out. Dr. Jen Shang is the world’s first philanthropic psychologist, and what philanthropic psychology does is use the donor’s moral identity to grow their potential. So instead of asking “how do we persuade someone to give,” it’s asking “how can giving help someone become more fully who they are?”

What it does is distinguish the good feelings we get from the action we take — that we give, what we do — from the good feelings we get from who we are. The goals of philanthropic psychology are to boost a person’s identity. We have seven different dimensions of identity, and a few of those include our moral identity, our collective identity, our group identity — there’s also religious identity and many other forms. But the concept of philanthropic psychology is using our donors’ identity to help them discover who their best self is. And truthfully, all of your fundraising communications are a mirror. Every appeal, every annual report, your donation landing page, your newsletter — everything is a mirror, and donors are looking for themselves in it. “Is this me? Is this me?” When I’m on your landing page, I’m asking myself, am I the kind of person that cares about this? Am I the kind of person that cares about endangered species? Am I the kind of person that cares about helping injured animals find homes?

So in philanthropic psychology, we’re helping the donor discover who their best self is, because the more we’re able to speak to a donor’s identity, the more they’re going to feel great about themselves, and the more they’re going to increase their giving.

So there’s how we perceive ourselves, and then there’s how we want to be — how we aspire to be. And we want to reflect that aspirational self back to our donors. Here’s a quick example of an outer envelope from the British Columbia SPCA — and fun fact, Melaina is Canadian, and I’ve been friends with her for almost eight years and just found that out, because she does not have a strong Canadian accent.

Melaina Chromy: I’m sorry to all the Canadians on the call too that can’t detect my accent — I’ve lived in the States too long.

Rachel Muir: I never would have known you were Canadian. But this is the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and they are setting fundraising records using philanthropic psychology. The goal of philanthropic psychology is to grow love by nurturing people’s identities. So, to do that, we have to figure out what their identity is, and once we do, we help them feel recognized for their values and connected to something bigger than themselves. When they experience philanthropy this way, it becomes a source of personal fulfillment that they naturally want to repeat.

I’ll show you the results from the British Columbia SPCA implementing philanthropic psychology in their work: they increased their donor base 32%, dramatically increased monthly giving and new donor acquisition, and direct response revenue growth went through the roof. So if you’re wondering, “interesting idea, but does this really work?” — it does work. It’s worth your time.

Now I’m gonna talk about how, based on the Bloomerang research and philanthropic psychology, fundraisers can highlight belonging and identity to raise more. I’ll show you some examples. The idea is that we’re speaking directly to the human behind the giving — in every piece of communication you send, it’s a mirror to your donor. Are they going to see themselves, and how are they going to look? So I’m not just talking about what the gift is going to do — I’m talking about who the donor is when they give.

I love this example: “All Max and his littermates lack is the compassion of one person who can change everything — you. Only someone like you.” So I’m speaking to the human behind the giving. This is a direct quote from Dr. Jen Shang, the world’s first philanthropic psychologist: instead of asking people why they give, we’re asking them who they become when they give.

Here’s another example of philanthropic psychology at work: instead of just speaking to what the donation can do, we’re speaking to who the donor is. So instead of “Melaina can shine the light of hope,” we’re letting Melaina know she is the light of hope.

I studied philanthropic psychology — I have my certificate with distinction in it. You can go to the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy to learn more if you’re interested. But you can see the difference here: “The next orphan pup needs you. Please become a monthly sustainer” versus “The next orphan pup needs you — someone who loves them. Please become a monthly donor.” What we know about philanthropic psychology is that feelings of bonding are likely to be higher when what’s needed is me as a human being, not just my money, but me as a human.

I love this — active, direct, centered language. You can see the big difference here: “someone who loves them.” This makes me feel a lot better about myself, because you’re telling me I’m needed as a person, not just as money.

Here’s another example, from the Soi Dog Foundation. Think about it: when you’re going through your mailbox and opening up your direct mail, you’re looking and thinking, is this a bill? Is this a bill? And if you saw a handwritten letter addressed to you, you’d think, oh my gosh, what is this? When I’m reading this, it’s identifying that I’m part of a special group of animal lovers, and with every piece of communication I’m asking, is this me? Is this me? Is this me? They do great work — I love the Soi Dog Foundation, and they’ve been setting fundraising records.

I’ll show you the distinction between “self words” — how we might describe ourselves as a person, like generous or thoughtful — and “supporter words,” how we describe ourselves as a donor. That’s all from the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy. The goal is finding out what adjectives our donors use to describe themselves, and reflecting those words back to them. Here’s an example of what that looks like in a fundraising appeal, which I think is the hardest place to do it: “When you see a homeless person sitting on a park bench or sleeping under a bridge, you wonder what you should do. That’s the kind of person you are.” I’m reflecting the aspirational person that donor is back to them in this copy. This example is actually from the book How to Turn Your Words into Money by Jeff Brooks.

And I’m gonna turn it back over to my partner in crime to talk a little bit about a very special generation.

Melaina Chromy: Thank you, Rachel — I love those practical examples of how fundraisers can use identity to raise more.

So for our next section, we’re gonna talk about a generation that really stood out in our research: millennials. And I’ll disclose, I am a member of this group, so when I tell you some of these numbers surprised me, I mean it genuinely.

Here’s what we found. 75% of millennials expect to give more this year than last year — more than their older counterparts: 49% of Gen X and 36% of baby boomers-plus. 80% plan to give to at least one new nonprofit this year, compared to 52% of Gen X and 30% of baby boomers. Members of this generation are actively looking for new organizations to support, which is a great acquisition opportunity for us as fundraisers. And this last stat is the one that genuinely threw me for a loop: 42% of millennials have already given through a DAF or another tax-advantaged vehicle — far more than any older generation. So these folks aren’t just giving regularly, they’re giving strategically, and I think that’s really important for us to acknowledge. Members of this generation aren’t young anymore — they’re coming into their powerful earning years.

What we’ve uncovered, in addition to Bloomerang’s Giving Signals report, is some of the latest data from the Giving USA report. We know that an estimated $124 trillion is expected to pass from baby boomers to their younger counterparts over the next thirty years. Giving USA’s latest data shows bequests jumped at the second-highest rate on record, which I think is a strong indication that we’re beginning to see the wealth transfer take place.

So, all this to say: even though we’re seeing a strong desire to give in millennials and even younger donors, these folks aren’t a different species. Issue alignment is still the number one motivator for every generation to give, but millennials are more influenced than older generations by third-party reviews, matching campaigns, personalized communications, mobile-first experiences, and peer recommendations from family, friends, or coworkers. I think modern consumerism and communication standards for younger generations have shaped what they expect from nonprofits and what they perceive as normal or best practice.

The good news is that most of these preferences — mobile-friendly communications, matching gifts, etc. — are strategies that can help you raise more across the board, regardless of generation. They’re just more important to younger supporters. So how can we cater to younger donor preferences while ensuring our strategy helps all of our donors raise more? I don’t want to overwhelm you by suggesting you need a whole new strategy just for millennials — that’s not what I’m saying. So let’s chat about what these donors are looking for that raises the tide for all donors. The first is frictionless giving. Rachel, you want to chat a bit about this one?

Rachel Muir: Yes. Okay, I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but there’s friction and there’s frictionless. Friction is anything that’s hard to do — maybe an appeal with eight-point font that’s hard to read, a great wall of text. This is cognitive friction. Here’s an example — an actual donation page, and it’s so overwhelming: all these logos on top of the header, alternating bold text, really hard to read. If you landed on this website, you’d think, what do I do? Why are these logos here? It’s overwhelming, and it isn’t obvious to the visitor what action to take, why they’re needed, or whether they’re the kind of person who wants to support this.

But here’s a much cleaner example. We’ve got an image, a dog and a cat looking directly at the camera with a neutral expression. We’re telling people right now that my gift is going to help save more lives. So it’s the difference between cognitive friction and cognitive ease — think of your messy closet versus everything beautiful on Pinterest. Pinterest is all cognitive ease: well organized, clean, plenty of white space. It’s obvious from this button that most people are giving fifty dollars right now — they’re using a bit of social proof to help me understand my opportunity.

People make a decision to give when they’re on your landing page in seconds, as I just said, and we want it to be very easy for them to understand why they’re needed, what they can do, and what they should do right now to make a difference.

Melaina Chromy: Yeah. And our next big takeaway for everybody is to follow up, thank, and acknowledge your donors. This is something that’s super important to younger donors — let them know their impact — and it raises fundraising results across the board for older generations as well.

Rachel Muir: I have a question for you all to answer in the chat. If someone makes a first-time gift to your organization, do you send a thank-you that specifically recognizes it as a first-time gift? Type yes into the chat if you call it out as such.

Okay, most people are saying yes — I’m impressed, though a few are saying no. Now, what about when someone becomes a monthly donor — do they get that same recognition? Okay, some people are saying yes too — good for you.

I’ll show you an example of that language. For first-time donors: “I’m delighted to receive such a generous first-time gift from you. Welcome to our donor family, we’re thrilled you’re here.” Monthly donors are special, and first-time donors are special too, because we know the vast majority of them won’t make a second gift. So the best thing we can do is make them feel the warm glow of joining our donor family. The greatest gift you can give your donor is the gift of feeling known by you — whether it’s a first-time donor, a monthly donor, or a lapsed donor who comes back.

Here’s a postcard from the YMCA — the front shows “all the firsts” the YMCA makes possible, and the back says, “Thank you for making your first gift, so their first could happen too.” I absolutely love that.

And here are some great examples from my friend Lynn Wester at the Donor Relations Group — two different universities welcoming back a loyal donor or alum who had stopped giving and came back. Again: the greatest gift you can give your donor is the gift of feeling known by you.

My last example — and this is funny, because this is the city Melaina is actually from, Calgary — is BB4CK (Brown Bagging for Calgary’s Kids). I’ve been a monthly donor to them for a little over a year; I became a monthly donor last spring, and this was my welcome message: a video of the executive director in the kitchen with volunteers behind her, packing lunches, saying, “I’m so grateful to become a monthly donor. The volunteers are behind me, all these kids are gonna get a nourishing meal. It’s all because of you.” She can record that once and use it for years — it’s warm, personal, and a great way to make a monthly donor feel extremely special. On my one-year donor anniversary, they sent me an adorable thank-you letter thanking me for being a “hunger hero” and marking a year since my first gift. These are all great ways to show your donors you care and give them the gift of feeling known by you.

Melaina Chromy: Amazing.

And this next tip touches on some of the conversation going on in the chat right now. We’ve talked about communicating appreciation, but there’s a cycle of effectiveness here: ask for the gift, thank, report back. That drives upgrades every time and contributes to donor retention, so that donor — younger or older, regardless of generation — will come back and give again.

Something we strongly advocate avoiding is what’s called the Thask: a thank-you and an ask smooshed into one. It’s like mixing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with bologna — you want to avoid it if at all possible. I think, Rachel, you’d probably want to touch on this too — a thank-you should be pure appreciation, separate from the ask.

Rachel Muir: Yeah — definitely gross. A lot of things go great with peanut butter — Nutella, bananas — but not that. And a lot of people worry, “how many appeals is too many?” Here’s what we’re here to tell you: you never have to feel stressed about asking too much, as long as you follow the formula — ask, thank, report back. The thank-you tells me you got my gift, but the reporting back tells me that I mattered. My decision to give to you again is shaped by how you treat me between appeals. Good donor relations are the only thing truly responsible for revenue in fundraising — it’s the communications you send in between appeals, letting me know my gift made a difference and describing the impact I made, that’s what motivates a donor to give again.

I love that some of you are including business cards in your thank-you notes — everybody should do that, because you want to be accessible. I want every fundraiser on this call to put their mobile number in their email signature — be the easiest person to contact. This is called the virtuous circle: ask, thank, report back. That’s what determines results — not whether you sent eight fundraising appeals or twenty. Donors define oversolicitation as being asked to give again before they knew their first gift made a difference.

Here’s a stewardship plan — business rules for how you acknowledge, thank, and appreciate donors. The number one thing I don’t want you to do is organize your stewardship plan based on gift amount. Base it on donor behavior: are they a first-time donor, a loyal donor, a monthly donor? If you treat donors based on gift amount, you will lose gifts and donors, because donors don’t know what kind of love and attention is waiting for them at higher gift amounts.

And I’m gonna pass the baton back to Melaina.

Melaina Chromy: This has been a fun relay, Rachel. Okay — so we’ve talked about the why behind giving, we’ve talked about millennials and younger donor interest. Now let’s chat about some specific things you can do to move someone from caring about your cause to making the decision and taking action to donate.

This likely comes as no surprise, but issue alignment is the number one factor for giving — 98% of donors give to organizations working on issues they care about. But what comes immediately after that stat tells us everything about how we should write appeals and steward after them: 94% of donors are motivated when an organization tells them exactly where their money will go, and 90% are motivated when the organization tells them the impact of their donation.

Rachel Muir: Yay. Okay, so sometimes people get a little wrapped around the axle worrying about being tangible with donors about the impact their gift will make. You can be as creative as you want, but what motivates us to give is knowing our gift is going to solve a problem — without problems to solve, donors don’t have anything to do. So let them know the tangible difference their gift makes — it’s not a tiny drop in a bucket of a need so huge it’ll never be solved, but something that actually makes a difference. That could be “twenty dollars a month can feed a hungry senior year-round” — showing people how much more good they can do with a monthly gift — or “my fifty dollars provides lifesaving vaccines to a newborn.”

On giving people lots of different project choices — too many choices paralyzes people into not taking any action. There’s an actual book on this, The Paradox of Choice, by the Heath brothers.

And donors don’t need to know that your organization’s donations support your salary — that’s not motivating to them. They need to know what work you’re doing, what the output is. We’re not going to try to sell our donors on paying the light bill — that’s not motivating. The actual tangible impact is what motivates them. Without a clear offer, donors can’t help you, and they’re confused, and it’s not motivating to them.

So I’m gonna pass the baton back to my friend.

Melaina Chromy: Here’s the final thing I want to unpack as we get close to our close: the trust factor.

What we uncovered is that 97% of donors trust the nonprofits they give to, and 79% of donors trust nonprofits broadly to use funds effectively. We hear a lot in the sector about public trust of nonprofits declining, and if you were to survey Americans broadly you may find slightly lower numbers — general trust in nonprofits is lower than the numbers here, but still higher than any other major American institution, like government, media, or corporations. What happens when you talk specifically to donors — people who have given in the last year — trust skyrockets. This draws a meaningful distinction: general public perception of nonprofits as a category is different from how a donor feels about their organization. Once someone gives, they make a choice to trust.

Building off that trust component, we asked donors what indicates to them that a nonprofit is effective. Remember, these are people who already trust the organizations they give to. The number one answer was transparency: 69% say clear financial or program reporting is the strongest signal, 58% said impact data, and 42% said beneficiary stories or testimonials. So donors wanting transparency doesn’t indicate low trust — these signals, trust and transparency, work together, not against each other. Trust is the baseline we’re operating on with the folks who choose to give to us; transparency is what deepens and reinforces that trust over time, and it’s a touchpoint of effective stewardship.

So let’s talk about the transparency donors are looking for. Rachel, how can we show donors transparency?

Rachel Muir: A hundred percent — this is so important. You want to be transparent with your donors about everything: what you’re supporting, their impact, and if you’re ever in a reputational crisis, transparency there too.

Here’s a great, easy example: “You made your gift one week ago / one month ago / three months ago, and already, [blank].” Another favorite of mine is just four words: “Saw this, thought of you.” It could be any win, any success — a text message, an email — but it’s a way to show your donor it’s working, that they’re making a difference. Donors consistently tell us they want to know their gifts are making a difference. It’s the proof in the pudding — it makes them feel great about themselves, it makes them feel like you’re doing a great job, and it builds trust and credibility in their eyes.

Melaina Chromy: Yeah. And piggybacking off what Rachel just said — when you follow up with donors and show impact, that’s good stewardship, but it also goes back to the identity work we’ve been talking about throughout this presentation. We’re reflecting that mirror back at them, reaffirming their identity.

So I think we’ve got one more example from you, Rachel.

Rachel Muir: So this is a reporting-back example. As we said, we talked earlier about the virtuous circle — asking, thanking, and reporting back. Reporting back is telling the donor the impact they made. Here’s a great stewardship example: “I wish you could have met Jenna” — I love starting stories that way, because it draws people in. It goes on to describe a client’s transformation: she was in an abusive relationship, got refuge and support, and is now at community college doing really well. It closes with a P.S. inviting them to get to know the organization more — visit, have coffee — because you always want to be creating opportunities to deepen the relationship. Reporting back is describing the donor’s impact to them, and as soon as you’ve done that, they’re ready to be asked again — but you need to close that loop first.

Melaina Chromy: We’ve got a great survey for you all to take. Two resources here: a quiz put together by Dr. Jen Shang and Adrian Sargent at the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy, which will show you where your current efforts stack up when it comes to showing donor love and validating your donors’ identities — don’t worry if you can’t grab the image in time, everyone will get the recording afterward. The second is a QR code linking to the Giving Signals report itself. I’d encourage you to check out both resources, and Rachel’s favorite quote as our final parting word, and then we’ll open up for Q&A.

Rachel Muir: Yes, I love this — there are so many great questions in here, I’ll start digging into these. I hope you’ll all take the survey from Jen Shang and Adrian Sargent too.

One question is from Allison: many companies hire groups to handwrite envelopes for nonprofits — what’s your opinion on these versus having nonprofit employees do it, and is there a point of scale where it’s not feasible? Here’s the thing: you are still writing the copy that goes in those handwritten envelopes — someone else isn’t making it up for you. So these services can help nonprofits make donors feel appreciated and acknowledged, and you’re still choosing the words. I have no problem with helping you do great stewardship by giving you tools to be effective. For a lot of my clients, it’s also allowed really great donor segmentation.

Mike asked: does philanthropic psychology overemphasize individual psychology while ignoring structural causes? No — philanthropic psychology is the study of identity and how it relates to giving, it doesn’t ignore structural causes. I’d encourage you to learn more about it — it’s a powerful way to better understand and communicate with your donors as individuals.

Josh asked: since most people don’t make a second donation, what language encourages the practice of returning and giving again? To get that second gift, we want the donor to feel appreciated, feel like their gift made a difference, and we want to recognize that it was their first gift. Those three things would be the top things I’d focus on.

Melaina Chromy: I’m gonna launch a quick poll, since I see some specific Bloomerang-related questions coming in. As we keep going through the Q&A, feel free to answer the short poll — it’ll let us know if we need to follow up with you afterward.

Rachel Muir: Jessica asked: does sharing impact through e-newsletters count, or should it be a direct mail letter, etc.? Your e-newsletter is a mass communication going to everyone. Reporting back on my impact is more personal and specific — the goal isn’t to ask for another gift, it’s just to let me know my gift was meaningful and made a difference. I’d encourage a personalized email or letter instead — printed donor newsletters are fantastic, but an e-newsletter is a mass communication, and what we’re talking about here is stewardship.

Kate asked: what do you suggest if we don’t have any clear offers, or the problem we solve isn’t tangible? You can find me at Rachel at Rachel Muir dot com if you want to dig into this further — I believe you’re a brilliant, creative person, and you’re doing something to solve a real problem, even if it’s not obvious yet. You can also learn more at rachelmuir.com, including my program, the League of Extraordinary Fundraisers.

Allison also asked: how can we share a clear numerical impact when we’re a community college raising money for scholarships?

Melaina Chromy: I don’t want you to share a numerical impact at all — I want you to share an awesome story about a student who graduated or is in school and what a difference the scholarship made in her life. That was one of my best-performing appeals when I was in higher education — we interviewed scholarship recipients, got their consent to share their story, and it was really powerful. The message is: every gift adds up to that great story of how life has changed.

Rachel Muir: A hundred percent.

An anonymous attendee asked: how close to actual cost should your problem statement be? In the “twenty dollars a month” example, that’s framed as an incentive for monthly giving — you’ve got to tell donors how much more good they can do with a monthly gift. And don’t stress too much about tangible versus intangible framing of exact costs — you know the details better than your donors ever will, and they’re not losing sleep over it. Even for something like restocking food shelves, you could simply say, “your generous donation today will fund [the program]” — you don’t have to overthink the exact math.

We’ve got a diaper bank question about how to get testimonials. I’d say do everything you can to ask your community partners for them — explain that hearing these stories is what drives donations and helps you keep delivering diapers to families. I actually have a friend who started a diaper bank, so there’s also value in networking with others doing similar work.

This next one is from someone who said most of their organization’s donations go toward their own salary, and donors don’t like that — but it’s their job, full time. How do I explain that? You don’t have to explain that at all. Just talk about the work your organization is doing — it’s the cost of doing business, like a light bill, and we’re not writing appeals to fund electricity. Talk about the programs, not the overhead.

Melaina Chromy: And I’d add — the fundraising and donor world is changing on this, thankfully. Your salary matters, and your wellness matters too. You’re doing the hard work of bringing your mission to life, and you deserve to be compensated for it. We did a report on this a year or two ago and found that younger generations care less and less about nonprofit overhead — they view fundraisers and nonprofit employees as instrumental in achieving change. Hopefully that’s a bit of encouragement.

Rachel Muir: A hundred percent. Allison asked a really great question that I’ll answer, and I’ll stick around and answer more if that’s okay — it’s up to you, Melaina.

She asked: we currently use templates for our thank-you/tax letters, mainly due to volume — how often should we change these up so donors don’t feel like they’re getting the same message over and over? I’d sit down with a cup of coffee and write a series of as many as twelve different thank-yous. Your donors shouldn’t get the exact same thank-you every single time — they may stop donating if they do. “I have too much volume to keep up with this” — you can do this.

Josh said in the chat, “they’re making money for you, so make time for them” — I’m with Josh a hundred percent.

An anonymous person asked: how do we write beneficiary stories without leaning on savior-complex-esque language? “You were her lifeline” might be true but feels a little off — or am I overanalyzing? I think you’re overanalyzing. So many nonprofit professionals are really hard on themselves, and we should all give each other more grace. I’ve seen program staff overthink this — worried they’re being a “savior” — while the actual clients are asking to share their story because it would make them happy. It’s a beautiful thing to help another human being and to let someone know they made a difference. Don’t beat yourself up over it — you’re doing a great job, and it’s a hard job. We’re supporting you and cheering you on.

Melaina Chromy: I’m gonna go ahead and wrap up for us — I know we still have open questions. Rachel’s email is on the screen if you have other questions she can answer. Hopefully you took a moment to answer our poll — if you had specific Bloomerang questions, we’ll be in touch. Keep an eye on your inbox for an email with the webinar recording; if you have more questions, you can reply to that email and a real person will help you get an answer. I hope you all learned something today and left feeling encouraged — Rachel and I are the biggest fundraiser fans out there, so know you’ve got the two of us in your corner, cheering you on. Thank you for your time today.