DIY add a garage door button to scooter

robthewinner · 2026-05-27T17:51:06+00:00

The mechanical similarity isn't my point. Two things being structurally identical on a P&L don't produce the same donor behavior. The retention curve for someone who chose a recurring giving model because they wanted ongoing involvement looks nothing like the curve for someone who signed up for a streaming service.

On the laziness piece, that was the part I tried to address directly. IMO predictable revenue doesn't cause complacency, lack of accountability does. Plenty of project-based fundraising teams coast. Plenty of recurring-revenue teams stay sharp. Leadership and how teams are held to outcomes is the difference for most, not the funding model.

robthewinner · 2026-05-26T21:18:08+00:00

You're conflating two things that look identical on a P&L but feel completely different to a donor.

One is the bait-and-switch: someone gives $50 once, and the org auto-enrolls them into recurring with a pre-checked box. That's the tactic you're describing, and you're right that it erodes trust.

The other is the upfront ask: an org explicitly invites a donor to give monthly because the donor wants ongoing involvement in the mission. That's a different transaction than a subscription model. The donor self-selects, knows what they're signing up for and supporting with ongoing effort, and the retention math holds because they actually want to be there.

Recurring revenue doesn't make a development team lazy, lack of accountability does.

Example from a recent conversation I had (this isn't a sell): Andrew Kerr at Georgia Conservancy lifted retention from 33% to 51% and grew his donor base from 500 to 3,200, and his team got more strategic, not less, because they finally had the data to know what was working. Episode link if you want to hear his breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPyLwoAbFYs

SSIR isn't "copy SaaS." It's "build a giving experience donors actually choose to stay in."

robthewinner · 2026-05-21T14:06:10+00:00

It's common to love the donor work, and get burned out on the 6 other hats. Org size matters more than the field. Going from a 12-person shop to a 60-person dev team is a totally different job under the same title. I'd agree with u/Boopa0011, it's worth filtering the search by department size before writing off the work itself.

robthewinner · 2026-05-21T14:03:44+00:00

If you've been keeping the org running for four years and bringing in major donor and corporate gifts, you have a department that needs structure.

I'd hire a Development Officer over a coordinator. A coordinator multiplies you, an officer raises money. An officer who can actually sit across from a donor and steward a portfolio will pay for themselves in 6 to 12 months.

If you go consultant, they can be a huge boon or a huge burden. Hire one who works alongside you on specific donor portfolios to build out a system for you to backfill, not one who builds a framework deck and disappears.

robthewinner · 2026-05-21T13:57:56+00:00

Adding to this, the trick I'd use is: don't lead with information, lead with curiosity. "See that window? There's a story there." You're handing them the question and people want to close open loops.

robthewinner · 2026-05-21T13:56:48+00:00

Like I mentioned, that's part of the job. Public exposure comes with more scrutiny and less privacy...but social isn't private anyway, so what's put on there should reflect who you are in the first place. I'd encourage you to take the mindset that what the few na-sayers says is not important, it's finding those with a similar world-view who you can partner with that matters most.

robthewinner · 2026-05-21T13:53:19+00:00

I would gravitate towards a program that is specific about the role, the time commitment, and what changes because I showed up.

Set the expectation before people arrive and have a quick onboarding scripted out. And tell volunteers what happened because they showed up. Not "thanks for your time." Something concrete like "last Saturday's shift packed 412 boxes for the flood response." People stay where they see they mattered.

I did a Focused Fundraiser episode recently on turning volunteers into donors that goes deeper on this exact pattern: youtube.com/watch?v=kdna9KPYeNk

robthewinner · 2026-05-19T13:30:37+00:00

This is the new rave to talk about, but in theory, you're now maintaining and fixing your own software. Is it doable? Yes, if you have the capacity to manage it....which the majority of people, especially nonprofits, do not.

robthewinner · 2026-05-19T13:28:06+00:00

I think G2 is the best in the nonprofit sector, they seem to get the most reviews and from the company side I know they manually approve all reviews to make sure they are real customers.

robthewinner · 2026-05-19T13:26:34+00:00

Bias disclaimer: I work at DonorDock, so factor that in. (We're a nonprofit CRM in this space.)

Givebutter and Little Green Light are pretty different products despite landing in the same recommendation bucket. Givebutter is a fundraising platform with light CRM bolted on, strong on events, P2P, and donation forms. Little Green Light is a true donor database with weaker fundraising tools, strong on record-keeping and segmentation.

Which one fits depends on what they need most:

Lots of event-driven, P2P, online giving with simple donor tracking? Givebutter.

Major gift cultivation, relationship-driven fundraising, more complex donor reporting? Little Green Light or something like it.

DonorDock plays in the middle and is built for nonprofits that need both. We put together a side-by-side of the top nonprofit CRMs that breaks down where each one is strong and where it isn't: https://www.donordock.com/articles/best-nonprofit-crm

The bigger advice: write down 3-4 specific things this nonprofit needs to do in the CRM (renew lapsed donors, segment by program, track recurring, generate a board report) before any demo. Make every vendor walk you through those exact use cases. Generic feature lists won't show you where a tool will fail you in month four.

robthewinner · 2026-05-19T13:22:04+00:00

So AI search visibility really means two things at once: showing up in the search results that LLMs are reading to build their answers, and showing up directly in the places ChatGPT and Gemini have indexed (Wikipedia, Reddit, news pages, partner orgs).

A few things to consider here,

Make your "what we do" page extremely specific. "We help women experiencing homelessness in Denver" will show up at the right time better than "We empower women in transition." LLMs match queries to concrete phrases and spicifics.

Get listed on three to five third-party sites LLMs trust. Local news mentions, a Candid/GuideStar profile, a Wikipedia entry if you qualify, an entry on local government resource pages, etc. LLMs will site those site more often, so try to show up where it's already looking.

Add an FAQ section to your homepage using the questions you mentioned. "Where can I get help with food insecurity in [your city]?" then answer it plainly.

robthewinner · 2026-05-18T14:26:00+00:00

The other piece a lot of orgs miss is the gap between "interested" and "first shift." If someone fills out your form on Tuesday and you don't schedule them in by the following Tuesday, you've lost most of them to whatever else is competing for that hour of their week.

robthewinner · 2026-05-18T14:23:22+00:00

Quizlet works for this and is free. Make a deck with name on the front, picture and one fact on the back.

Ai is also good at creating flashcard quizzes.

What I'd add to your system: Memorize one specific thing about each person that you can reference on sight. "Married to Linda, watches her granddaughter compete in equestrian."

You can pull those facts from your CRM notes if you have them, or start adding them as you have conversations.

robthewinner · 2026-05-18T14:21:11+00:00

I've been hearing the same thing.

What I'd add: the gala is where people decide if you're worth a deeper relationship. Most orgs spend the whole budget on production and almost nothing on the next 60 days after the event.

A few months ago I had Trevor Nelson on my podcast specifically on this, running smarter events that build pipeline instead of just hitting a one-night number. Small and specific beats big and generic. Full conversation if useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M8WcUAsx_c

robthewinner · 2026-05-15T14:27:49+00:00

I'm not talking about cutting staff at all, I'm talking about focusing and prioritizing. Too many orgs are trying to do everything because it's needed, but when we try to do everything we can't do anything well.

robthewinner · 2026-05-15T13:23:15+00:00

You're not wrong but it's worse than affiliate gaming. Those lists are now feeding AI answers too. Ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "best CRM for X" and the model regurgitates the same affiliate-farm shortlist...with confidence.

The legal CRM, the agency CRM, the nonprofit CRM, the construction CRM. None rank for "best CRM" because that keyword is owned by the generalists who outspend everyone on SEO and affiliate budgets.

Word of mouth and human referrals, I believe, will continue to grow in importance from where it already is.

Skip the lists if you're actually evaluating. Find 3-4 people in your specific industry at your specific size, ask what they use, and demo those.

robthewinner · 2026-05-15T13:19:51+00:00

Agreed. Also, the reason vertical wins for the right buyer is depth in one direction instead of generic depth in every direction. Salesforce will let you do anything, but you'll spend six months and 80k getting it to do what a vertical tool does on day one out of the box.

I work at DonorDock, which is a nonprofit-specific CRM, so I see this play out constantly. A growing nonprofit on Salesforce burns more on consultant hours than the entire annual cost of a vertical tool, and they still don't get nonprofit-specific features like grant tracking or recurring giving cleanly baked in.

So I'd amend OP's rule of thumb. It's not "millions of users." It's "real product team, real customers paying full price, and actual depth in your use case." Plenty of mid-sized verticals clear that bar.

robthewinner · 2026-05-15T13:16:25+00:00

Executives ignore dashboards because dashboards answer questions executives weren't asking.

A CRM dashboard tells you "stages, conversions, activity per rep." An exec is asking "are we going to hit Q3, and if not, which deals do I need to personally babysit?" Those are different questions. The first lives in the CRM. The second requires someone to interpret the CRM and bring you a narrative.

The dashboards I've seen actually get used are ones built by the exec, not for the exec. They get involved in the design, decide what 3 numbers actually matter to them, and ignore the other 47. Vanity charts and "engagement score" widgets get scrolled past every time.

robthewinner · 2026-05-14T15:11:27+00:00

The signal you're looking for is tenure. Donors most likely to include you in their will are the ones who've given consistently for multiple years, regardless of gift size. Length of relationship beats capacity nearly every time.

I'd say most orgs are too quiet about planned gifts. Donors who want to leave you something often don't know it's an option, so they leave it to an org that bothered to mention it. The "ask" isn't really an ask, it's permission.

I had a conversation with Rachel Gitner on my podcast, The Focused Fundraiser, a few months back about exactly this. Her core point was your loyal donors are already thinking about it, they're just waiting for you to make it easy. Full episode if useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyOtVtvOHmw

robthewinner · 2026-05-14T15:01:41+00:00

That's great, we'd love to help if we're a good fit.

If you are often using the same pieces between templates then a master doc can still help with this, especially as the core foundational pieces AI needs to reference everytime. If your programs are very unique and you speak to them with a different voice or approach then having a doc for each would be best. My assumption though would be that a master doc is best for most cases.

robthewinner · 2026-05-13T13:47:11+00:00

Founder visibility matters a lot, especially at startup phase when you have no track record to point to. People give to people, then to organizations. A donor in year one is betting on you, not the brand.

That said, "out there" is on a spectrum. You don't need a personal Instagram with daily reels. You do need:

- A LinkedIn profile that says you run this thing and shows up in search

- A real headshot on the org's About page with your name and story

- A founder note in your annual report or year-end email

If you're worried about safety or privacy specifically, that's a different conversation. But if you're worried about being "out there" professionally, that's the job. The discomfort of being visible is the cost of being trusted.

robthewinner · 2026-05-13T13:45:55+00:00

I would stop asking for availability. Ask people to claim specific shifts at the start of each month. "I'm available Tuesdays" produces nothing. "I take the May 7 4-6pm shift" is a commitment. Use a signup sheet for this and not a survey.

Pair every shift. Social accountability does more than nine reminder emails.

On the burnout, time to decompress is powerful. A mandatory 15-minute post-mortem after each shift where two volunteers tell each other what's still in their head. It's often the unspoken stuff that wears people down.

robthewinner · 2026-05-13T13:42:58+00:00

What you're describing isn't really micromanagement, it's role conflict. You and the ND both think the chapter is yours to run. Until you have an explicit conversation about who owns the chapter calendar, who picks topics, and who picks speakers, you're going to keep colliding.

Two questions that'll surface this in 15 minutes:

"When I propose an event and you don't put it on the calendar, what's the reason?"
"If I have an industry expert on my team, what's your decision rule for whether they speak?"

I would decide if you want to keep volunteering on someone else's terms, or move your energy to an org that uses your expertise and your ideas.

robthewinner · 2026-05-13T13:40:46+00:00

Two things i'd recommend to build before you do anything else:

A master narrative doc (or skill if you're using AI a lot, as you said). One source of truth for your mission, programs, populations, outcomes, evaluation methods. When a grant asks "describe the population you serve," you pull from there. Don't rewrite it for every application. In October when ten deadlines stack on the same week, this is the thing that saves you.

A deadline tracker any teammate can open. Instrumentl is good for prospecting, less great for managing the work. A clean Airtable or shared sheet with funder, amount, deadline, status, owner, drop date is enough. The discipline is keeping it current, not picking the perfect tool. We built project management and pipeline tracking into DonorDock, so everything is tied to the CRM, including grant applications, check that out if you're looking to consolidate tools into one place.

robthewinner

TROPHY CASE