Do not adopt a fundraising tactic because a trend article says it is the future. Start with the friction in your actual donation process, choose one change and define how you will judge it.
M+R’s 2026 Benchmarks study covers nonprofit fundraising, advocacy and marketing. It can provide comparison questions, but its participating-organization results are not a forecast for your own fund. M+R Benchmarks
Start with three testable areas
The following are practical testing areas, not claims that every nonprofit is adopting the same tools:
| Area | Question to test | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|
| Donation experience | Can a visitor understand and complete the process? | Completion, errors and support questions |
| Recurring giving | Do donors understand frequency and cancellation? | Completed commitments and later retention |
| Follow-up communication | Does the message answer a donor’s actual question? | Responses, unsubscribes and repeat engagement |
Choose a test because it addresses a problem you have observed—not because a tool vendor promises a general conversion lift.
Write a test card before changing the page
Record the current problem, proposed change, audience, measurement period and decision rule. Name the person who can stop the test if it creates confusion or a privacy concern.
For example: “Donors keep asking whether a gift recurs. We will rewrite the payment-frequency label and check whether those questions decline while monitoring completed donations.” This is an original hypothetical test, not a documented success story.
Measure net results, not just gross donations
Suppose a campaign receives $1,000 and has $200 of directly attributable costs. Another receives $1,200 with $500 of those costs. The corresponding amounts after these costs are $800 and $700.
These invented numbers show why a larger donation total can hide a smaller net result. They are not vendor fees or recommended spending levels. Define which costs you include and keep that definition consistent.
Also keep pledges, actual payments and recurring commitments separate. A promise to give later should not silently become money already available for awards.
Treat personalization as a permission question
Before segmenting messages, write down what data you need and how it was obtained. Ask whether the message would surprise the person receiving it. Do not infer sensitive student information to make a donor appeal sound more targeted.
A simple segment based on an expressed communication preference may answer the campaign’s need without building a much more intrusive profile. This is a proposed design principle, not a claim about a particular platform’s capabilities.
If you use AI, keep the checks human
A draft appeal can still contain invented outcomes, exaggerated urgency or unapproved personal details. Assign someone to verify every claim and confirm permission for any participant story before sending it.
Never turn a fictional example into a testimonial. Do not claim that a donor’s gift alone produced an outcome that depended on many people and resources.
Compare vendors using written terms
Ask about payment processing, platform charges, recurring-payment handling, cancellation, exports, accessibility and support. Record exact quoted terms and their date. This article does not endorse a platform or invent its current pricing.
A useful first experiment
Choose one donation page and ask a person unfamiliar with the campaign to explain the purpose, amount, frequency and next step. Note misunderstandings before adding more technology. Then decide whether the next change needs a software purchase at all.
