I Read 120 Year-End Fundraising Emails. Here's What I Noticed.
Over the holidays, I ran a little experiment.
I saved every fundraising email that hit my inbox between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve.
There were 120 total from 40 different organizations, and I read (not skimmed) them all.
I’m weird. I know.
I wasn’t trying to grade them or decide which ones were “good” or “bad.”
I also want to say UP FRONT that have a LOT of opinions, but I have zero data, no open rates, no conversion numbers, and no idea how any of them performed.
Mostly I was curious what patterns would emerge if I actually paid attention. Here are a few things I noticed.
1. The same subject lines appeared over and over.
More than 20 emails used some version of urgency language.
“Last Chance.”
“Final Hours.”
“FINAL hours” (different organization).
“Running out of time.”
“Hours left.”
“Just hours left.”
“This is it.”
“Before midnight.”
“Make your tax-deductible gift before midnight.”
A handful went a different direction.
“About these fundraising emails, man-to-man.”
“A Christmas Eve reflection on the sparks you’ve ignited.”
“What feels impossible today, you can make possible tomorrow.”
I’m not saying one approach works better than the other, but I definitely noticed the difference.
2. Most emails tried to do a lot at once.
A typical email included some combination of a matching gift opportunity, a deadline, a story about a specific person helped, a progress bar or fundraising thermometer, a tax-deductibility reminder, a quote from a beneficiary, and a P.S. about alternative giving methods like donor-advised funds or stock transfers.
A smaller number of emails did one thing.Maybe a story and an ask. Or just the match.
I noticed the emails that tried to do less felt different to read. But again, I have no idea if “different to read” translates to “more effective.”
3. Matching gifts were everywhere.
About half the emails mentioned a match. Most were 2X, but I also saw 3X and even 5X matches. One organization escalated from 3X to 5X on December 31.
Match caps ranged wildly, from $10,000 all the way up to $540,376.
4. Specificity varied wildly.
Some emails were concrete.
“$50 puts interview prep in someone’s hands.”
“$100 provides professional clothing that opens doors.”
“$1,200 fuels a year of mentoring.”
“$350 gives two families safe, piped water at home and gives them back 6 hours a day.”
“$31 provides food so children don’t go to bed hungry, rent support to keep families sheltered, and medical care for emergencies.”
Others stayed abstract.
“Your gift brings hope, dignity, and a chance to flourish.”
“Your generosity will transform lives and futures.”
“You can make a real difference.”
Both approaches showed up constantly. I noticed I remembered the specific ones more easily when I went back through my notes.
The best emails used a combination of both.
5. One email acknowledged the awkwardness.
Most emails acted like they were the only appeal in my inbox, but one took a different approach:
“I received an email from a reader who was frustrated that I was asking for donations. I’m glad he wrote. You deserve honesty.”
Then he explained that his organization is 100% reader-supported, that there’s no hidden funding stream, and that they ask once or twice a year.
I only saw this once in 120 emails, and it stood out.
Of course, maybe if they invited people to give more than once or twice a year, they wouldn’t have so much pressure at year-end.
6. Some organizations sent a LOT of emails.
One organization sent SIX emails in three days. The subject lines progressed through variations of urgency, but the body content was nearly identical each time.
The structure, the ask, and the language were ALL THE SAME. The only thing that changed was the subject line.
Other organizations sent one or two emails total.
I usually recommend sending 1 email the day after Christmas, 1 email on December 30, and 2 on December 31.
Every organization is different, and you should test the best frequency for your list, but I definitely noticed the range.
7. Stories showed up in different ways.
About a quarter of the emails featured a named person. A dad named Zac struggling with addiction, a mom named Masura walking miles for unsafe water, a child in foster care named Holly born with drug exposure. These stories ran several paragraphs before the ask appeared.
Roughly a third had no story at all, relying fully on the deadline, the match, and a giving button.
The rest split the difference and included a sentence or two referencing “families like Maria’s” without fully developing the narrative.
8. Progress updates were common.
“We’re 74% to our goal.”
“We’ve raised $122,000 but still need $38,000.”
“We’re 63% of the way to $1 million.”
Goals ranged from $30,000 to $1.6 million. I noticed progress updates often appeared alongside matching gift language, creating a “we’re close, and your gift is doubled” combination.
9. The tone ranged from urgent to quiet.
Some emails felt like they were shouting with countdown timers and subject lines like, “FINAL hours.” “Don’t wait another moment.” and “This is your last chance.”
Others were more gentle. One subject line was:
“A Quiet Invitation Before the Year Ends.”
It opened with gratitude, mentioned there was still time to give, and closed softly.
Obviously, the goal was the same, but the energy felt different.
10. Personal signatures varied.
Some emails came from “The Team” or the organization name. Others came from a specific person. The executive director, the founder, a program officer. A few included photos of the signer or handwritten-style signatures.
So what am I taking into next year?
I’m not going to pretend any of my observations are best practices, but a few things are rattling around in my head and I think we should all try to remember them next year as we work to make our year-end campaigns standout in the inbox.
Look at your subject lines in a lineup. This goes beyond asking, “Does this subject line work?” It’s more like, “What does this look like sitting next to 47 other emails that all say ‘Last Chance’?” Maybe leading with urgency is still the right call, but I want to make that choice intentionally.
I’m curious what happens when we commit to one thing. Not because stacking is wrong. It’s not. But I want to test an email that’s just the story or just the match and see if it performs differently.
Try getting weird with specificity. Anyone can say, “$35 helps a family” and it’s probably true. But it’s way more believable when you can say, “$31 provides food so children don’t go to bed hungry,” Weird numbers and concrete images are the ones that stuck with me. It takes work to get to specific weird numbers, but you have plenty of time left on the calendar this year to figure it out.
You might try naming the elephant. Something like, “You’ve probably gotten a lot of emails this week. So have I. Here’s why I’m sending one more.” I don’t know how well that would work, but I only saw it once in 120 emails, and I’m still thinking about it.
Remember the real job of a year-end email. Most people aren’t fundraising nerds like me pouring over every word carefully. They’re glancing at their inbox, maybe clicking into your email, and then quickly moving on. Sometimes the win isn’t persuasion. Sometimes the win is just showing up in someone’s inbox and reminding them you exist at the moment they’re deciding where to give.
That’s what I noticed last week and a bit of what I’m trying to remember for next year.
If you want to do your own experiment next December, I recommend it. It’s strangely fascinating.
Did you get a lot of year-end emails? What stood out to you? I’m curious what patterns you noticed.
