Who Told You That? (Fundraising Lies We Keep Repeating)

Fundraising is full of advice. Some of it is helpful, some of it is outdated, and some of it simply isn’t true. The challenge is that when something gets repeated often enough, it starts to feel like best practice, even when it’s quietly limiting the way we build relationships with donors.

At FourPoints, our perspective isn’t based on theory or preference. It comes from a combined 55 years in this work. Any advice we offer is shaped by what we’ve seen work and what we’ve seen fail in real programs, with real donors. And to be fair, some of those lessons came from our own ideas.

Like, one time when there was a well-intentioned strategy to have a CEO introduce midlevel staff and invite donors to complete a survey. It felt thoughtful and efficient on paper. In reality, it fell flat. Completely. That idea didn’t make it into the long-term playbook, but it did reinforce something important. Not every “good” idea translates into meaningful engagement.

By the way, it was my idea. It taught me a lot, and we pivoted quickly. Guess what approach we took? The good ole send a hard copy letter. Maybe I should have listened the first time that was suggested. I digress.

What’s more concerning than a single idea that doesn’t work is when entire beliefs about fundraising go unchallenged. Over time, these beliefs become rules, and those rules shape strategy in ways that aren’t always grounded in donor behavior.

Let’s start with Direct Mail. Here are a few of the most common "rules” we hear, and why they’re worth rethinking.

One of the most persistent beliefs is that midlevel and major gift donors should be removed from direct mail. “Because they don’t like mail.” In practice, this decision is rarely based on direct feedback from the donor. Instead, it’s often an assumption made on their behalf.

When donors are removed from mail streams, they are also removed from consistent opportunities to give. Over time, especially with staff transitions, those donors lose touch with the organization entirely.

Giving doesn’t stop because interest disappears. It often stops because the invitation to participate disappears. Direct mail isn’t competing with relationship-based fundraising. It’s reinforcing it.

A related belief is that if a donor is receiving direct mail, they shouldn’t also receive a personal ask. This one is particularly limiting because it frames outreach as either transactional or relational, rather than recognizing the value of both.

Direct mail provides consistency and scale. Personal outreach provides connection and context. When used together, they strengthen the overall donor experience.

A donor who is known and engaged should absolutely be invited to give personally. The presence of a mailed appeal doesn’t replace that relationship. It supports it.

There is also hesitation around sending impact communications to donors who are already receiving appeals. Again, the concern is that it may feel like “too much.” But impact is not the same as solicitation. Impact is where donors see the results of their generosity. It’s often part of the communication cycle that brings the most meaning and connection.

If a donor does feel overwhelmed by volume, that’s a valuable conversation to have. It creates an opportunity to learn their preferences and adjust accordingly. But choosing not to share impact in favor of appeals preemptively removes one of the most important ways donors experience the mission they support.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: we love direct mail. There’s a valuable partnership to be had with the teams that do mass touches.

Next week, we’ll dive into two other “lies” about donor behavior.