VeraData just dropped their 2026 Fundraising Signals Report with Faircom New York and Teal Media, and it’s one of the most honest fundraising reports I’ve read in a while.
It covers the tough questions we’re all facing right now on how to balance acquisition and retention, run integrated programs, and make decisions with shrinking budgets.
But three predictions landed squarely in the inbox.
Put proof before story
This one’s my favorite. The report introduces a concept called “proof design”: structuring your emails so that specific, verifiable impact comes early, before the narrative.
The idea is that when donors are scrolling on mobile, they’ve already made up their minds before your explanation arrives.
Their example is an email about food insecurity. The traditional version opens with a family’s story and buries the impact two paragraphs down.
The proof-first version leads with: “Your $50 provides seven days of groceries for a family of four. Last year, we distributed 2.3 million meals through 40 partner sites.”
The same story follows. But the proof comes first, so the story actually gets believed.
The decision rule here is dead simple: if you can’t state impact in one sentence plus one proof point, rewrite the offer.
And if the proof is buried late in the email, move it up before you test anything else.
How many fundraising emails save the “here's what your gift does” line for the P.S.? This report is saying that’s exactly backward.
Not every donor needs your next email
Prediction 2 draws a line between “audience-first” (what’s relevant to this person?) and “donor-first” (what does this relationship need next?).
For email teams, it’s the difference between sending the next campaign on the calendar and asking whether this donor should hear from you at all right now.
The example stings a little: a donor gives during a high-urgency moment, then gets a thank-you, a second appeal, a newsletter ask, a peer-to-peer invite, and retargeting ads in two weeks.
All technically audience-first. All from different teams. But none of it feels like a relationship.
Their recommended metric is net revenue per touch. If that number falls, reduce email volume, then rebuild relevance before increasing volume again.
Your donors can smell AI slop
Prediction 6 names the thing we’re all circling: AI-generated content is flooding every channel with “good enough,” and donors are starting to notice.
VeraData calls out “polite robot” tone: copy that’s neutral, safe, and boring.
The decision rule I’ll remember: if your creative could be swapped with another organization’s email and still make sense, rebuild around what only you can prove.
Specific numbers, specific outcomes, specific context.
That connects back to proof. Generic claims are the first red flag of AI-saturated content.
The bottom line
Be specific and stop relying on emotional language to do work that proof should be doing.
If your next email could belong to any organization with a logo swap, that’s your signal to go back to the drawing board.
Industry events
Free: The donor cultivation playbook: smarter touches, stronger results
Wed, Feb 18, 2:00 PM ETThu, Feb 19, 3:00 PM ET
Paid: 2026 Nonprofit Technology Conference
Mar 10-13 - Detroit, MI
Check our events list for more or reply to this email to submit one for consideration.
Quick hits
Al Iverson interviewed Civic Shout CEO Josh Nelson on Spam Resource about why short-term spam-and-scam tactics in political email are eroding the channel’s power for everyone, and what ethical list growth looks like instead.
Speaking of AI slop … 15 AI-related ads or ads made with AI out of 66 appeared on screens during the Super Bowl, and Marketing Brew reports that consumer reception was “sharply negative,” with nearly 50% of mentions critical.
4Site is hiring a fractional Director of Digital Strategy to lead fundraising and advocacy strategy for a small portfolio of clients on platforms like Engaging Networks.
‘Til next time!
Sara