Rant on Retention Redux (2025 Edition)

It's been 8 years since my last Rant on Retention and we're still talking about some of the same themes. TL;DR - absolutely retention is a key metric, it's absolutely the right way forward and too often neglected and . . . as with so many things, we need to keep looking at it critically. This 2025 version includes some action items on how to do just that.

Let’s get this out of the way: yes, I still believe donor retention is a critical issue in our profession.

But you know what I believe even more?

That too often, we're measuring donor retention out of context—and then drawing the wrong conclusions.

Because if we’re not asking the right donors to renew—if we’re not even clear on who was solicited to renew—then how exactly are we measuring “retention”? Spoiler alert: we’re not. We’re just counting.

And while we’re here, can we also stop beating up fundraisers with sensational headlines?

“The biggest mistake you’re making!”

“Why fundraisers fail at retention!”

“How you’re driving away your donors without realizing it!”

Honestly? Enough.

There are a lot of fundraisers doing really good, thoughtful, strategic work. There are shops where donor relationships are strong, goals are being met, and mission is being funded. Are those fundraisers also measuring retention? Maybe. Maybe not. But let’s stop assuming incompetence every time a metric isn’t tracked.

More importantly: let’s stop pretending every donor is supposed to be retained.

Some gifts are one-time for a reason. A capital campaign stretch gift. A tribute gift. A crowdfunding burst of generosity for a friend. Not every donation is meant to repeat annually—and if your retention report doesn’t distinguish between types of giving or even funds, it’s not a retention report. It’s a glorified count.

And then there’s the technical mess of how we even get to the number in the first place.

Most CRMs don’t have a built-in retention report. You’re told to run two queries—last year’s donors, this year’s donors—export both to Excel, and use a VLOOKUP to compare. (Shout out to pivot tables while we’re at it.)

Let’s be real: that takes time. Skill. And some database setups make it wildly difficult to even access the necessary information. And if you’re in a small shop without a data analyst or database admin? Forget it.

Even worse? These systems often don’t account for soft credit. Or changes in donor identity. Or those pesky real-world behaviors that don’t fit our tidy 12-month fiscal boxes.

Here’s a more recent real-life example (names changed):

- In 2017, Monica gave a $500 gift to the annual fund.

- In 2018, her wife Jamie gave $1,000 for a specific program, and Monica was soft-credited.

- In 2019, they made a $2,500 gift together via their family foundation.

- They skipped 2020 entirely—global pandemic, new baby, and job loss.

- In 2021, they returned with a $3,000 DAF gift.

- In 2022, nothing.

- In 2023, they made another $2,500 gift for general support, this time under Jamie’s name only.

According to a standard year-over-year report? They’re lapsed. In fact, they’ve been lapsed multiple times. (Possibly because somebody somewhere decided that Jamie was a "Mr." and we had a few messages mis-gendering a loyal donor, but that's another rant for another time.)

But take a step back and look across the full timeline?

That’s consistent (but not consecutive) giving.

That’s a strong household donor who clearly sees themselves as invested.

And that’s a donor pair who doesn’t care about our calendar year.

In their minds, they’re supporters.

If our systems can’t see that—and our retention metrics don’t account for it—then we risk treating generous, long-term donors like strangers. Or worse, like failures.

To be clear: I’m not discounting the importance of the data. I’m a supporter of the Fundraising Effectiveness Project and the broader efforts to help our sector benchmark performance and raise our game. The data matters. These reports matter.

But the story behind the numbers matters just as much.

Because when we say “we need better donor retention,” what we really mean is:

We need to take better care of our donors.

We need to thank them more. We need to invite them back intentionally. We need to honor their giving—whether it’s a $10 check or a $10,000 transfer—with consistency, care, and respect.

If we focus only on the number and not on the relationship, we’re missing the point.

So yes—run your retention reports.

But don’t stop there.

Ask the better question:

Did we ask our donors to renew?

Because if we didn’t, we can’t be surprised when they didn’t.

And then—do something about it.

👉 Action Step:

Pull a high-level 5- or 10-year giving history from your CRM. Summarize giving totals by year and look for donors who’ve given in multiple years—but not this past one. Even if they’re “lapsed” by your system’s standards, they may be consistent, long-term supporters who’ve just shifted timing or skipped a cycle. You can also identify these donors by comparing first gift date to last gift date—if those two dates are far apart, they likely see themselves as ongoing donors, even if they missed a year.

Flag those donors.

Treat them as valued.

Reach out like they still belong—because in their minds, they do.

And if you need help surfacing those patterns—or you’re swamped with all the other “summer slump” chaos—check out the Generosity FINDER report from Next River. It’s designed to uncover trends just like this, so you can get back to building relationships without losing hours in spreadsheets.