Hey Reader,

Here's a number that stopped me in my tracks this week. A recent report by Virtuous and Fundraising.AI surveyed 346 nonprofits: 92% percent are using AI, yet only 7% say it's made a major difference to their mission.

I’ll bet that nearly everyone has the tool, but not many have a plan.

At a recent presentation I attended, a small nonprofit shared a story that fit that picture perfectly. Their team of three was busy testing AI. One person drafted appeal copy with a chatbot. Another summarized donor survey responses. The communications coordinator used it for social posts. Everyone saved time and felt proud of it. Meanwhile, their board chair asked whether the organization had an AI strategy. Their honest answer? A shrug.

They shared their planned year-end appeal, and the facilitator asked the group three simple questions:

-Who decided which tools you use?

-What donor information goes into them?

-What happens when the output is wrong?

Nobody answered right away. It turned out that one team member had pasted a segment of donor names and giving history into a free AI tool to "help with personalization."

Nobody meant any harm. They were curious, stretched to the max, and moving fast, which describes most of us.

Two emails in the same appeal also sounded like they came from two different organizations. The executive director said it best: "We're saving time, but I can't tell you if we're getting better."

So, they stopped adding tools. They spent one morning writing a single page and chose one place to start: the development director would review first drafts of thank-you notes before anything went out. It was small, low-risk, and easy to measure. It specified who owns AI decisions, how to review notes before donors see them, and what information never goes in. Soon after, they reported that their appeal sounded like them again and that they could clearly explain their approach to a board member.

Here's what I took away from that: Testing AI is like buying a treadmill. The purchase feels like progress, but if it’s sitting idle in the corner, it'll never make you fit. It's the training plan that does.

Adaptive leaders use AI with purpose. They ask whether a tool supports the mission and protects donor trust, and whether they can improve how they use it over time. They see AI as part of their strategy, not just a way to save an afternoon. Purpose changes the questions you ask. "How much time did this save?" is a fine question. "Did this help a donor feel closer to our mission?" is the better one. It takes time to get used to it!

In practice, it comes down to three things: people, processes, and policies. Give someone ownership of AI decisions, so questions have a home. Build a review step so a human who knows your voice reads everything before donors do. Write down the rules, especially what never goes into a tool.

Because AI changes every few months, treat that page as a living document with a review date. Your organization doesn't need to predict what's coming. It needs to be ready to learn as it arrives.

One more thing, and it might be the most important. To do any of this well, it’s time to step back from your usual strategy. Most of us plan by picking a direction and driving toward it. That works when we know the route to success. AI is NOT familiar.

That adaptive mindset treats each step as an experiment: try it, watch what happens, and adjust. It also means being willing to say "we got that wrong" without blame, and to change your approach when something isn't serving your donors. Leaders who think this way don't wait for perfection; they stay curious and keep reviewing what they've learned.

This week, block 30 minutes and draft a set of AI ground rules for your team. Answer these three questions:

Who owns AI decisions?

What donor information never goes into an AI tool?

Who reviews anything AI-assisted before it reaches a donor?

Put a date on your calendar 90 days from now to revisit it. It won't be perfect, and it doesn't need to be. You're building something you can improve upon. Once it's drafted, share it with your team and ask what's missing.

Ready to get started? Let me help you. I’ve developed a simple way to determine whether your organization is AI-ready. Hit reply to this email, and we’ll find a time to meet.

Link 💜

Go deeper on the findings from those 346 nonprofits and see the real fundraising impact. Download the report right here!

I couldn't resist sharing this one: The unexpected gets noticed. TY Rachel Muir.

Prompt ✨

You are an expert major gifts fundraiser and donor communications strategist.

Write a 5-email outreach sequence for a nonprofit fundraiser to send to a high-priority prospective donor.

Use:

Organization: [NAME]
Mission: [MISSION]
Prospect: [WHO THEY ARE]
What we know about them: [INTERESTS, CONNECTIONS, PRIOR GIVING, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT]
Why they may care: [RELEVANCE]
Impact proof: [RESULT, STORY, OR DATA]
Desired next step: [CALL, COFFEE, TOUR, MEETING]

Sequence:

Email 1: Create curiosity and relevance. No ask.
Email 2: Share one specific impact story or result.
Email 3: Address why they may not have responded.
Email 4: Add credibility or social proof.
Email 5: Close the loop respectfully and leave the door open.

Rules:

Keep each email under 90 words.

Sound warm, personal, and human.

Use simple language and short paragraphs.

Do not use fundraising jargon, guilt, pressure, or fake urgency.

Do not invent facts, relationships, donor interests, or results.

Do not ask for a gift too early.

Give each email one clear, low-pressure next step.

Include a subject line for each email.

Make the five emails feel like one connected conversation.

Keep learning! See you in two weeks. ✌🏼