> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://fundrais.ing/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Before you ask again - URL: https://fundrais.ing/before-you-ask-again/ - Published: 2026-11-04T02:35:10.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-04T02:35:10.000Z - Author: Kyle Conner Before sending another appeal, I want to know what the donor heard after the last one. If the answer is a receipt, followed by silence until the next request, I have an unfinished piece of fundraising work. A receipt confirms that the money arrived. The donor still has a reasonable question: what happened after that? When I took over development at a pediatric skilled nursing facility, donor retention stood at 18%. Alongside the work of running events, I needed to give people a reason to remain involved after they had already chosen to help. That meant making room for communication that explained the work their gifts supported, even when there was no immediate request for money. I put those contacts on the calendar before scheduling solicitations. A solicitation has a deadline and a revenue target. An update can wait until next week, and then the week after that. Unless someone assigns it a date, staff can overlook it without ever deciding to drop it. ## A finished project can still need another gift Consider a hypothetical community theatre raising money for student matinees. A donor helps pay for buses so a school can bring its students to a performance. After the trip, the theatre sends a photograph of students taking their seats and thanks the donor for helping pay for their visit. That is a promising beginning. But a useful report can explain which school attended and what students saw. If teachers have requested another visit, include that. Staff can describe what the students attended without claiming that one afternoon changed their lives. Then, a few months later, the theatre asks for support for another school visit. There is no contradiction between completing the first visit and needing money for the next one. The confusion begins when a fundraiser describes the original gift so broadly that the donor cannot tell what it actually paid for. If the first thank-you implied that access to theatre was now assured, the next appeal has some explaining to do. I would make the scale clear from the beginning. The donor helped fund transportation for a particular visit. Another group will need transportation next term. A completed afternoon is worth reporting in its own right; it also gives the fundraiser something concrete to explain when asking again. ## Give the donor something to understand In *Fundraising Principles and Practice*, Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang describe how repeated giving can change the way donors understand their relationship with an organization. A person can explain a first gift as a response to a friend's request. After giving again, that person has more reason to recognize a genuine interest in the cause. A fundraiser can give donors something to think about while they are making those decisions. In the theatre example, an update about the first visit helps the donor understand what another gift would support. That takes space on the calendar for messages that explain the work without asking for another payment. In my planning, I used three appreciation or outcome contacts for each solicitation. I wouldn't prescribe that ratio for every organization. Its value for me was that it required space on the calendar before fundraising deadlines consumed it. A reply envelope tucked behind a thank-you is still a request. I would count it as one when reviewing the donor's experience. Otherwise, I could congratulate myself on a busy stewardship calendar while asking for money in nearly every contact. The more useful test is to read the actual messages in order. After the acknowledgment, does the donor learn anything about the work? Can the donor connect the next request to what the organization said it would do with the previous gift? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/47/96/4796d5fe-109d-4894-be26-9484c9ce9e76/content/images/2026/11/image1.jpg) ## Report what you know, including the delay Sometimes the update is difficult because the work is unfinished. A delivery ran late, or the organization has spent the money but cannot yet assess the result. Sending another request can feel easier than explaining the gap. But spending a gift and demonstrating its effect are different stages of the work. A fundraiser can explain one without pretending to have reached the other. In the theatre example, staff can confirm that the school attended and how much transportation cost. They may still be waiting for teachers' feedback. The report can say that there is a date for a further update if staff can commit to one. A photograph establishes that the visit happened; it cannot establish what students learned. I would apply the same discipline to disappointing news. If the visit had to be postponed, tell the donor what changed and what will happen to the funding. Waiting for a more flattering story leaves the donor without the information already available. Communication cannot guarantee another gift. A donor's circumstances may change, or they may have intended the first contribution as a one-time gift. Over my tenure, program retention increased from 18% to 45%, but that result does not isolate the effect of any particular message or contact ratio. Before preparing the next appeal, I would open the previous one and read the promise it made. Then I would look for the message that told the donor what happened. If that message hasn't gone out, it is the next piece I would write. \[1\] Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang, *Fundraising Principles and Practice*, 2nd ed. (Wiley, 2017), Chapter 13, “Donor Retention and Development,” p. 398\. [Chapter information](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119228974.ch13?ref=fundrais.ing).