Nonprofit

One person, one number, one ask. The rest is what makes it not work.

A large share of annual giving arrives in December, and a disproportionate part of that in the final three days of the year. Four emails, sent to a list you have spent the other eleven months not only asking from.

Full copy on this page · No signup · Nothing gated

In short

A year-end donation appeal is four emails over about six weeks: an early-December story email about one person, a mid-December email about the specific gap, a 30 December email naming the deadline, and a 31 December final ask. Industry benchmarks put a large share of annual individual giving in December and a striking concentration in the last three days, which is why the calendar matters more here than in almost any other sequence. The most expensive mistake is asking a list that has heard from you only when you needed money. Full copy for all four is below.

DecemberCarries a large share of annual individual giving
Last 3 daysConcentrate a striking share of December itself
1 personPer appeal. Aggregate numbers do not move anybody
11 monthsOf non-asking is what makes the ask work

The sequence

1Email 1 — early December
Subject{{beneficiary_first_name}} came to us in {{month}}What happened next, and what made it possible.

Hi {{first_name}},

In {{month}}, {{beneficiary_first_name}} {{specific_situation}}.

{{specific_detail_that_makes_it_real}}

{{what_your_organisation_did}}. It took {{concrete_resource}} — which existed because people like you had already given before {{beneficiary_first_name}} ever walked through the door.

{{where_they_are_now}}

That is what your giving does. It is not abstract and it is not a statistic.

Give before 31 December

Why it is shaped this way: One person, named, with a detail specific enough that it could not be anybody else. Research on charitable giving has found consistently that a single identified individual raises more than an accurate number describing thousands — and that adding the statistic to the story reduces giving rather than increasing it. Do not do both. Also note the tense: this describes work already funded, which makes the ask about continuing something rather than starting it.

2Email 2 — mid-December
SubjectWhat {{amount}} actually doesThe specific gap between now and 31 December.

Hi {{first_name}},

We need {{specific_gap_amount}} before 31 December to {{specific_outcome}}.

That is not a round number chosen to sound urgent. It is {{breakdown_of_the_number}}.

Here is what different amounts do:

{{amount_1}} — {{outcome_1}} · {{amount_2}} — {{outcome_2}} · {{amount_3}} — {{outcome_3}}

If you have given this year, thank you — genuinely, and you can ignore the rest of these emails.

Give {{suggested_amount}}

Why it is shaped this way: The gift table is doing the work: a donor who does not know what is normal defaults to nothing, and three specific amounts tied to specific outcomes converts far better than an open field. Explaining where the target number came from is what separates a real goal from a manufactured one, and readers can tell the difference. Excusing existing donors from the rest of the sequence costs you almost nothing and is remembered.

3Email 3 — 30 December
SubjectTwo days left in the tax yearShort one — the deadline and the link.

Hi {{first_name}},

Two days left to give in {{year}}.

We are {{amount_remaining}} short of {{specific_gap_amount}}. {{what_happens_if_we_get_there}}.

{{donation_link}}

For US donors, gifts made by 31 December count toward this tax year. If you itemise, that may matter to you; if you don't, ignore this line.

Give now

Why it is shaped this way: Short and almost entirely logistical. By 30 December the argument has been made twice and repeating it wastes the attention of somebody who is deciding, not learning. Handle the tax point carefully: state the deadline as fact, do not imply a benefit that only applies to itemising donors, and never present it as tax advice.

4Email 4 — 31 December, late morning
SubjectLast hoursMidnight tonight. Then we'll leave you alone until the spring.

Hi {{first_name}},

Midnight tonight is the deadline.

{{final_progress_number}}

{{donation_link}}

And whether or not you give today: thank you for reading these. The next email from us will be in {{next_contact_month}}, and it will be about what your giving did rather than another ask.

Give before midnight

Why it is shaped this way: Four lines. The last-day email consistently earns a disproportionate share of the total, and it earns it by being easy rather than by arguing harder. Committing to the next contact being a report rather than an ask is the single line that protects the relationship for next year, and it obliges you to actually send it.

What goes wrong with this sequence

Only emailing when you need moneyThe appeal works because of the eleven months around it. A list that hears from you three times a year, all asks, produces falling returns and rising unsubscribes. Send impact reports, send the thing that went wrong, send a thank-you with no link in it. The appeal is a withdrawal from an account you have to pay into.
The statistic next to the storyIt feels like the story plus the scale is stronger than either. It is not — putting an aggregate number alongside an individual's story has been repeatedly found to reduce giving compared with the story alone, apparently because the scale prompts a mode of thinking in which one gift feels futile. Put the numbers on the donation page, not in the appeal.
Not suppressing people who already gaveAsking a donor for money four days after they gave is the fastest way to make a generous person feel like a record in a database. Wire the donation event to an exit condition, test it with a real gift, and send donors a thank-you path instead. This is worth checking every year — it breaks quietly when a payment provider changes.
Vague amounts'Whatever you can give' produces less than three specific amounts tied to three specific outcomes, because most donors have no idea what is useful and are afraid of being wrong. Anchor them.
Overstating the emergencyIf this December is described as the most critical moment in the organisation's history, and so was last December, readers stop believing the fifth one. Reserve genuine crisis language for a genuine crisis. A calm, specific gap is more credible and, across years, raises more.
Giving tax adviceDeadlines are facts and you can state them. Whether a donation reduces a particular person's tax depends on their circumstances and whether they itemise. Say when the deadline is, say gifts are receipted, and leave the rest to their accountant.

Questions

How many appeal emails is too many in December?

Four across six weeks is comfortable for a list that hears from you the rest of the year. Organisations sending eight or ten do exist and do raise more in the short term, but they pay for it in unsubscribes and in a list that is harder to reach next year. The number that should govern is how much non-asking contact the list gets in the other eleven months.

Should we segment by past giving?

Yes, and it is the highest-value segmentation available to a nonprofit. Past donors should see a different first line — an acknowledgement and an upgrade ask — from people who have never given. Lapsed donors need the reminder that they gave before, which is often all it takes. The gift table should shift with the segment.

Do we need to send on 31 December itself?

Yes. It is consistently one of the highest-returning single sends of the year, because a large share of December giving arrives in the final days. Send it late morning in your main audience's timezone rather than at midnight, and keep it to four lines.

What about donors who gave earlier in the year?

Suppress them from the ask or send a distinct version that thanks them first and asks for an additional gift rather than a first one. Getting this wrong is one of the few email mistakes that damages a real relationship rather than just a metric.

Is a matching gift worth using?

It is genuinely one of the strongest levers available, provided the match is real and the terms are stated plainly. A named matching donor and a real ceiling gives a deadline a reason to exist beyond the calendar. A perpetual match that renews every year is transparent and stops working.

Keep exploring

Email marketing for nonprofitsWhy per-contact pricing charges you rent on a decade of supporters.Email segmentation guideSplitting donors, lapsed donors and never-givers without two lists.Landing pagesThe donation page, without a second subscription for it.Re-engagement seriesFor supporters who have not opened anything in a year.AutomationsThe donation exit condition that stops you asking a donor twice.All templatesWelcome, cart recovery, launch sequences and more.
Free · 7 days

Build this sequence in an afternoon.

Seven days of full access, no credit card. Paste the copy, set the timings, connect your store or signup form, and let it run.

Start your 7-day free trialSee all templates