Welcome to The place for quick-fix help and support

 Most charities are told to “post consistently”. That advice is often wrong.

• Posts aimed at one clearly defined audience consistently outperform broad, “everyone” messaging on engagement and click-through.
• Narrow-topic posts routinely get 2–3× higher engagement than generic updates.

Charities obsess over socials and neglect email.

• Average email open rates for charities sit around 25–30%, compared to social organic reach often below 5%.
• Email audiences convert at significantly higher rates for volunteering, events, and donations.

 “Here’s what we did” dominates charity feeds — and underperforms.

• Posts with a clear call to action consistently outperform passive updates
• Engagement increases when people are asked to respond, not just read

 Charities worry about being repetitive. Audiences rarely notice.

• Most followers only see a small fraction of post.
• Messages often need to be repeated multiple times before action occurs

 “Be everywhere” advice stretches already thin teams.

• Many charities see meaningful engagement on only one or two platforms
• Spreading effort thinly reduces quality and consistency

 Time pressure is the real constraint.

• Repurposed content performs strongly across formats
• Audiences rarely notice reuse — but do notice inconsistency

 Charities obsess over acquisition and neglect retention.

• Acquiring a new donor can cost 5–7 times more than retaining an existing one
• A small increase in donor retention can significantly increase lifetime value

Practical takeaway:
Prioritise keeping donors, not constantly replacing them.

 Charities are afraid to be specific.

• Appeals with a clear, specific ask outperform vague “support us” messaging
• People are more likely to give when they know exactly what their money does

Practical takeaway:
Specific beats inspirational every time.

 Planning is undervalued compared to creativity.

• Appeals tied to predictable moments outperform last-minute campaigns
• Organisations with planned fundraising calendars see more consistent income

Practical takeaway:
Timing and preparation beat inspiration.

 Many charities still focus on single gifts.

• Regular donors give far more over time than one-off donors
• They are also more likely to engage in other ways 

Practical takeaway:
Design appeals to encourage continuity, not just immediacy.

 Awareness is mistaken for action.

• Awareness without a clear next step has low conversion
• Donations increase when people are guided, not left to decide 

Practical takeaway:
Always tell people what to do next.

Charities often blame commitment, not process.

• Volunteer attrition is highest in the first 60–90 days
• Poor onboarding is one of the strongest predictors of drop-off

Practical takeaway:
How you start matters more than how you motivate.

Flexibility is offered without structure.

• Volunteers are more likely to stay when expectations are clear, even with flexible hours
• Lack of guidance increases dropout 

Practical takeaway:
Flexibility still needs boundaries.

Charities expect complaints before departure.

• The majority of volunteers who leave do so without giving feedback
• Exit conversations are rare but valuable 

Practical takeaway:
You need to ask, not assume.

 Charities focus on numbers instead of experience.

• Constant recruitment usually signals poor retention
• Retaining volunteers is cheaper and more effective than replacing them

Practical takeaway:
Fix the bucket before pouring more in.

“Help us out” isn’t compelling.

• Specific role asks outperform general volunteering appeals
• Clear time commitments increase sign-ups 

Practical takeaway:
Be specific or be ignored.

Charities are encouraged to “be visible everywhere”.

• A small number of channels typically account for the majority of engagement
• Spreading effort thinly reduces consistency and impact

Practical takeaway:
Fewer channels, used well, outperform broad presence.

“Raising awareness” is treated as an outcome.

• Marketing messages without a clear action generate significantly lower response
• People are more likely to act when guided clearly 

Practical takeaway:
Every message should lead somewhere.

Safe language creates invisibility.

• Messages that are distinctive and specific are recalled more often
• Generic phrasing reduces memorability and engagement

Practical takeaway:
Clarity and specificity beat polish.

“We did this” dominates charity marketing.

• Audiences engage more with content that reflects their concerns
• People respond when they feel understood, not informed

Practical takeaway:
Frame messages around the audience’s problem, not your activity.

Internal familiarity hides confusion.

• People struggle to explain what an organisation does after one exposure
• Simpler messages improve recall and confidence 

Practical takeaway:
If supporters can’t repeat it, it’s too complex.

Engagement is often framed as participation, not contribution.

• People are more likely to stay involved when they feel useful rather than consulted
• Engagement increases when roles are practical and defined

Practical takeaway:
Give people something concrete to do, not just something to attend.

Charities overestimate the power of their name.

• Trust is built through repeated personal contact
• People are more likely to engage when they recognise individuals, not logos 

Practical takeaway:
Visibility beats branding.

Charities chase breadth instead of depth.

• Engagement is more sustainable when anchored to trusted local connectors
• Strong partnerships lead to higher participation and follow-through

Practical takeaway:
Invest in fewer, deeper relationships.

Charities assume more consultation equals better engagement.

• Repeated consultation without visible action reduces trust
• Engagement declines when feedback appears to go nowhere

Practical takeaway:
Only ask for input when you’re prepared to act on it.

Generic messaging feels distant.

• People engage more with issues they can see and relate to locally
• Local framing improves recall and response

Practical takeaway:
Translate your mission into local terms.

Charities often assume rejection means they did something wrong.

• Many funders award grants to fewer than 1 in 5 applicants
• Some popular programmes fund under 10% of bids 

Practical takeaway:
Rejection is normal — plan for it rather than internalising it.

Charities focus on polishing bids instead of fit.

• A high proportion of rejected bids are ruled ineligible at first review
• Poor alignment is one of the most common reasons for rejection

Practical takeaway:
If you’re not a strong fit, don’t apply.

Volume is mistaken for strategy.

• Time spent on weak-fit bids produces consistently low returns
• Focused grant pipelines outperform scattergun approaches

Practical takeaway:
Be selective and deliberate.

Charities often over-emphasise need.

• Funders look for credibility, delivery confidence, and realism
• Overly negative framing can undermine trust

Practical takeaway:
Show need — but demonstrate control.

Charities promise more than they can deliver.

• Funders routinely assess organisational capacity alongside need
• Over-ambitious delivery plans reduce confidence

Practical takeaway:
Under-promise and show how you’ll deliver.

Copy-and-paste is common.

• Generic language reduces confidence in understanding and fit
• Tailored applications perform better

Practical takeaway:
Adapt the message, even if the project is similar.