In a recent piece, Candid reports that one in four donors say they plan to give less, yet a striking majority still respond to direct mail – including a very high proportion of younger supporters. It’s a useful corrective to some of the louder narratives around channel performance.
Why 1 in 4 donors plan to give less – and how direct mail still works (Candid)What stood out to us
Intentions to “give less” are real – but nuanced. Donors are under pressure and many are re-examining where and how they give. That doesn’t translate directly into blanket disengagement.
Direct mail is far from dead. Despite the noise around digital, a large majority of donors – including a surprising proportion of Gen Z – still say they respond to mail. The channel remains powerful when used well.
Channel myths can quietly shape poor decisions. The assumption that “nobody reads letters anymore” is increasingly hard to square with the evidence.
Why this matters for leaders
The story you carry about your supporters has consequences. If you assume donors are tired, cynical and unreachable, you’ll design campaigns out of defensiveness. If you assume “digital is the only thing that works now”, you may walk away from proven routes to meaningful connection.
Base channel strategy on what your audience actually does, not on the latest fashion.
This piece suggests a more grounded posture: accept that some supporters will need to give less for a season, but don’t confuse that with a collapse in interest or care. Pay attention to where they are still choosing to lean in – including in mail – and ask how you can meet them there with clarity and respect.
For leadership teams, the challenge is to base channel strategy on what your audience actually does, not on the latest fashion or the loudest internal voice. That requires curiosity, honest testing and a willingness to revisit decisions when reality contradicts your assumptions.
