It took 15 days to break my resolution to not write about frequency anymore…

Medium and large charities are few in numbers but have the vast majority of donors and thus, dominate the collective donor experience.  And a soiled Commons affects us all.

Standard fare for a medium or large charity is sending 10-20 mail appeals, 40–100 email asks and lots of digital ad campaign exposure. Why? Because the playbook says the more you ask, the more you get.

But does that really work or are we mistaking sheer volume for effectiveness?

The frequency machine fundraising model is easy to defend on paper: every extra appeal adds revenue (until it doesn’t), and those high-frequency donors and big-dollar gifts are proof it’s working, right?

Wrong.  This table shows the breakdown of donor behavior by acquisition year.

• Never Gave Again: Over 50% of first-time donors never return. These are the casualties of the frequency machine.
• Never Gave More Than 1x/Year: The plurality of donors, around a quarter of the total acquired but over half when you back out the “never gave again” group from the denominator, choose to be annual givers, if they give at all in a given year.
• Inconsistent Frequency Pattern: Around 15% give multiple times per year but not consistently.  Even this group, in a given year, is most likely to only give once but they give 2 or 3 times in a year enough to push their average gift/year to around 2.
• Lightning in a Bottle: Unlikely scenarios of people consistently giving 2x per year and those who did so once but never again.

The defenders of high solicitation volume will point to the revenue from the Inconsistent and Lightning in a Bottle groups and argue it’s Pareto principle at work and by extension, that this giving wouldn’t materialize without relentless asks. But is that true?

Let’s start with a counterexample. A national charity tested 15 appeals vs. 6 appeals per year. The result? Net revenue was higher and gross revenue was the same with fewer appeals. Why? Because donor retention improved, and donors were less irritated and fatigued.

This aligns with other research: the majority of dollars from high solicitation campaigns are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Our estimates suggest 65% of revenue from an appeal (e.g., Appeal 10) is pulled from later appeals (Appeals 11–15). This is cannibalization, not growth.

Here’s the flaw in the frequency machine logic: defenders assume the percentage of donors who give multiple times per year is directly correlated with the number of solicitations. This is the base rate fallacy in action.

The reality? Donors don’t respond linearly to more asks. There’s a natural cohort that will “right-size” itself into giving more than once a year. You’re not creating these donors by asking dozens and dozens of times—they exist because of their connection to the mission, not the volume of solicitations.

For those who believe solicitation volume is driving all the giving seen in the table, ask yourself: does that mean it’s also driving all the non-giving from the Never Gave Again group? Are the same asks that supposedly inspire giving also responsible for driving away over 50% of first-time donors?

Speaking of which, another critical point: first-year retention isn’t the same as “ever giving again.”  Donors don’t abide by our definitions of active or lapsed. They give when they’re ready—when the mission resonates, when they trust the organization, and when their identity aligns with the ask. High-frequency solicitation doesn’t account for this; it simply churns through donors faster.

The Path Forward: Put Down the Megaphone

The frequency machine is like that salesperson who texts you five times in a row and calls another 5.  Sure, they get your attention—but are you more or less likely to respond?

Here’s how to stop the boiler room fundraising:

• Less Is More, Seriously
  Take a deep breath, step away from the “Send” button, and test fewer appeals. Remember the charity that went from 15 to 6 appeals? They didn’t implode. In fact, they did better. Turns out, you don’t have to yell to be heard—just say something worth listening to.
• Celebrate the Anniversary Club
  The single largest group of returning donors is those who “right-size” themselves into giving once a year. Think of them as the fine wine of your donor file—they get better with age if you don’t over-handle them. Build campaigns that recognize their natural rhythm instead of trying to turn them into sprinters.  The obvious aim is putting them on autopay and zero out the solicitations entirely.
• Stop Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
  If you’re squeezing revenue out of Appeal #10 by cannibalizing Appeals #11–15, you’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, you’re technically “busy,” but the ship’s still going down. Measure the cannibalization rate of your appeals and start thinking long-term.
• Speak to Who They Are, Not What They Gave
  Donors aren’t wallets—they’re people. People who give because your mission aligns with their values, not because you shouted louder. Stop asking for “one more gift” and start connecting with what drives them: identity, commitment, and trust.

The frequency machine has run its course. The data shows it’s better to talk to donors like partners than to yell at them like carnival barkers. Fewer, smarter, more thoughtful and different touchpoints based on who the person is don’t just improve retention—they build relationships that last.

Kevin