What if the real problem isn’t your fundraising channels… but how you’re thinking about them?

Email. Direct mail. Social. Text. We keep hearing one should replace the others. Spoiler alert: that’s not how donors actually behave.

The big idea

Channels aren’t dead. They’re just misunderstood.

We love to argue about which channel is “best.” Email vs. mail. Digital vs. print. New vs. old. But donors don’t live in channels. They live in moments.

They open an email in the morning.
They skim a letter at night.
They see a post while waiting in line.

It’s all one experience to them.

The real problem

When organizations say, “This channel isn’t working,” what they often mean is:

• The message feels generic

• The timing feels off

• The story doesn’t connect

• The channel is doing all the work, not the thinking

Ouch. But true.

A channel can’t fix weak communication. It can only carry it.

A healthier way to think about channels

Instead of asking, “Which channel should we use?” try asking:

• What does our donor need right now?

• Where are they most likely to notice us today?

• How can each channel support the same story?

Channels are teammates, not rivals.

Email warms the relationship.
Mail deepens it.
Social reminds donors you exist.
Text nudges action.

None of them work well alone for long.

Why this matters

When teams chase the “next big channel,” they burn time and energy. They also confuse donors. Ever get five messages that feel disconnected? Yeah. That.

Consistency builds trust.
Relevance builds response.
Channels just deliver the message.

A gentle challenge

What if you stopped trying to “kill” channels and started designing better donor experiences across them?

What would change if your message came first and the channel came second?

That’s the real conversation worth having.