Hubbub Insights
Hubbub Insights #24: Data First, Culture Always: What's Really Driving Fundraising Performance Right Now
The mid-year point is a useful moment to step back and take stock. What are the themes emerging across the sector? What conversations keep resurfacing? Looking across the articles landing in our feeds this fortnight, a few clear threads are pulling together, and they’re worth reflecting on honestly.
AI is only as good as the foundations beneath it
Let’s start with the one everyone’s talking about. AI continues to dominate sector conversation, but The Agitator’s sharp piece on why AI won’t fix the mess you feed it is a timely corrective to the hype. The argument is straightforward: if your data is in poor shape and your fundraising fundamentals are shaky, layering AI on top won’t save you. It’ll just automate the chaos.
This resonates. There’s enormous pressure on fundraising teams to adopt AI tools quickly, and understandably so, the potential is real. But the organisations most likely to benefit are the ones who’ve already done the unglamorous work: cleaning their data, understanding their donor base, and being clear about what they’re actually trying to achieve. AI accelerates good practice. It doesn’t create it.
Culture shapes performance more than tactics
One of the most grounding pieces doing the rounds right now comes from Clairification. Research highlighted by Claire Axelrad shows that organisations with a strong internal culture of philanthropy outperform those without one, measurably, in both fundraising performance and donor retention.
This matters because it reframes where improvement actually comes from. Teams often look to tactics first, a new campaign mechanic, a different ask structure, a better email sequence. And yes, tactics matter. But the organisations that consistently perform well tend to have something deeper in place: a shared belief across the whole organisation that fundraising is meaningful, that donors are partners, and that stewardship is everyone’s responsibility.
The innovation paradox, and the measurement trap
Related to culture is how organisations think about trying new things. The Agitator’s piece on evaluating innovation against outdated benchmarks is a bit of a gut-punch for anyone who’s sat in a meeting where a genuinely new idea gets shot down because it didn’t match last year’s mail plan metrics.
Organisations say they want innovation, but then measure new approaches against benchmarks built for the old ones. This is particularly relevant for digital-first campaigns, where the conversion journey, touchpoints, and donor behaviour look fundamentally different from direct mail. Applying the wrong yardstick doesn’t just produce misleading results, it actively discourages the experimentation that most organisations know they need.
Getting the mechanics right: email, matching, and memorial giving
On the more practical end, several articles this fortnight dig into the nuts and bolts of execution.
The question of match offers comes up regularly, and Future Fundraising Now’s look at whether you can have too many of them gives a reassuring answer: probably not. The evidence suggests match offers consistently lift response rates by 10 to 50%, and crucially, they don’t appear to lose their effectiveness through overuse.
The Future Fundraising Now podcast on holiday-based fundraising is a useful companion, exploring how to use calendar moments well without falling into the trap of lazy, interchangeable seasonal appeals.
Clairification’s breakdown of a real memorial donation appeal email is the kind of practical, unglamorous analysis that’s genuinely valuable. Memorial giving is emotionally complex territory, and walking through a live example, what lands and what doesn’t, is a useful exercise for any team reviewing their own templates.
On email stewardship more broadly, Nonprofit Hub’s case for year-round email engagement reinforces something we’d strongly agree with: the organisations that build consistent, warm communication throughout the year tend to perform better at year-end, because they’re not asking strangers for money. They’re continuing a relationship. Nonprofit Tech for Good’s ten online fundraising best practices rounds this out with a solid primer.
Building resilience: revenue diversification and list growth
Real Deal Fundraising’s piece on building six revenue streams makes the case for reducing dependency on single funding sources, a conversation that’s become increasingly urgent as grant landscapes shift and individual giving fluctuates.
On the audience development side, Nonprofit Tech for Good’s look at joint action campaigns offers an interesting low-cost model for growing email lists through shared petition campaigns.
Data: knowing who’s in your database and what they’re telling you
Nonprofit Hub’s explainer on prospect research is a good reminder that major donor fundraising doesn’t begin with a call, it begins with understanding who’s already in your supporter base and what the wealth data suggests about their potential.
Meanwhile, Colleen Dilenschneider’s mid-year data roundup is essential reading for anyone in the cultural sector. Covering engagement trends across local audiences, social media behaviour, membership renewal, ticketing, and admission discounting, it’s grounded, evidence-based analysis that cuts through a lot of the noise.
Inclusion as a fundraising principle
Finally, a piece that sits slightly apart but deserves a mention: The Fundraising Coach’s five tips for planning accessible school fundraisers. Making participation genuinely possible for all students, regardless of ability, is both the right thing to do and practically important for community fundraising that reflects its community. The principles translate well beyond schools.
There’s a lot to chew on across these themes, from AI readiness to internal culture, from email mechanics to data strategy. If you’d like to receive this kind of sector round-up directly, subscribe to our newsletter and we’ll keep it coming.
