We are not acquiring enough new donors.  We are recycling corpses.

It’s a quiet truth we all know and don’t say aloud. A whispered secret among fundraisers who still claim acquisition is alive. But look closer. The same two million names, passed from co-op to co-op like a rusted coin. They’re called “responsive,” but that’s a lie of omission. What they are is old. Familiar. Tired.

The names haven’t changed. The offers haven’t changed. The mail hasn’t changed.  And neither have the results—except for the worse.

Across co-ops, match rates are 90%, 95%, even higher. This isn’t evidence of modeling strength. It’s evidence of system collapse. If every co-op pool gives you the same list, it means nobody is reaching new people. It means we are burning acquisition budgets to keep a death march going.

Check writers still dominate these models. Why? Because the co-ops can’t model for anything else. They don’t have data on digital givers. They don’t have data on psychological affinities. They don’t even have usable promotion histories. What they have is: “Did this person write a check?”

And if they did, they’re in the model.  Even if they’re 89 years old. Even if they’ve given to 15 other charities last month.  Even if their mailbox is groaning under the weight of 27 premium-laden envelopes.

Everyone mails them anyway.

We treat it as rational. We chase 0.4% response rates and call it working. We split-test BRE paper stock like that’s the key to survival. We ask agencies for new ideas and they say, “matching gift.” They say, “coin mailing.” They say, “return address labels.” They say nothing new.

But something has to change. Because we are running out of names. Out of time. Out of donors.

The game has shifted.

New donors aren’t writing checks. They are digital. Mobile. Impatient. Their fingertips swipe before they write. Their instincts are frictionless. But what do we do? We mail them a reply card and ask for a pen, a stamp, a walk to the mailbox, and patience for processing.

It’s not just bad strategy. It’s denial.

When We Asked Co-ops This:

“Find me people who care about the cause. Not people who’ve written checks before. People with digital behavior, not direct mail history. Suppress the check writers. We won’t be using a BRE.”

They stared back blankly. They couldn’t or won’t do it. Not because it’s impossible. But because it’s outside their frame of reference. Their entire system is designed to find more of what’s already working—except what’s working is broken.

What’s Needed?

We need new names. Real new names. People who haven’t been mailed 37 times in a year. People who aren’t already giving to six other cancer charities. People who care, who are capable of giving, who just haven’t been asked right.

And yes, it will take time. Yes, it will require testing. Yes, you might lose money on the front end.

But guess what? You already are. You just don’t know it.

We’ve reviewed the results of some of the best known  agencies in the business. Ran the math. Break-even wasn’t at 12 months. Not 24. Not 36. Try 60+. Even then, it wasn’t close. These were acquisition programs lighting hundreds of thousands of dollars on fire—and the agencies are still getting rehired, still lighting money on fire.

Either they don’t know. Or don’t care.

Meanwhile, boards won’t invest in long-term strategy and techniques required for a viable future. CEOs won’t tolerate red ink. So the fundraisers do what they’ve always done: more mail, more match, more of the same.

And slowly, methodically, they lose.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

We can suppress check writers.  We can mail based on psychology, not just transaction history.
We can use third-party data.  We can skip the BRE.  We can model for donors who live online, not in retirement homes.

But first, we have to admit:  We’ve been mailing the dead.

Roger