Introduction
“Dear Ahmed…”
This may be the beginning of a message that appears personal, but it does not necessarily mean that the communication has truly been personalised.
Digital tools have made it easy to insert a donor’s name into an email or text message. Yet personalisation goes much further than replacing a name in a standard template. It begins when a non-profit understands the nature of its relationship with a donor or funder, what it genuinely knows about them, what is relevant to them, what has recently happened within the relationship, and then uses that understanding to determine the most appropriate communication or action.
Someone who has supported education several times does not necessarily need the same message as someone who made a one-off contribution to an emergency appeal. A recurring donor needs to understand the value of their continued support, while someone who donated yesterday may need appreciation rather than another request.
The same principle extends beyond individual donors.
A major individual donor requires relationship management appropriate to the nature of their funding and the stage of their relationship with the organisation. An institutional funder may require reports, indicators, evidence, implementation updates, and compliance information rather than the fundraising messages sent to individual donors.
Communication therefore shifts from:
“We have a message. Who should we send it to?”
to:
“We have a relationship. What communication or action is appropriate for it now?”
This is the essence of meaningful personalisation.
1. Personalisation Begins Where Segmentation Ends
Personalisation is closely connected to smart segmentation, but the two are not the same.
Segmentation asks:
Who needs a different approach?
Personalisation asks:
What should be different about that approach?
Segmentation may identify someone as a new individual donor interested in education, a recurring donor, a major individual donor, or an institutional funder with an active grant.
Personalisation determines what the organisation should do with that knowledge.
Therefore:
Individual Donor Personalisation ≠ Major Individual Donor Personalisation ≠ Institutional Funder Personalisation
For an individual donor, personalisation may relate to interests, relationship stage, timing, giving pattern, and preferred communication channel.
For a major individual donor, it may relate to relationship history, funding interests, the appropriate depth of information, stewardship arrangements, and the nature of communication.
For an institutional funder, it may relate to funding priorities, geographic focus, programme fit, grant type, funding cycle, reporting and compliance requirements, and the stage of the institutional relationship.
Personalisation, therefore, does not necessarily mean making communication “more personal”. It means making it more appropriate to the nature of the relationship.
2. From Surface-Level to Meaningful Personalisation
Personalisation can be understood at two levels.
Surface-Level Personalisation
This involves using basic information to modify certain elements of a message, such as:
- Name.
- Language.
- Communication channel.
- Contribution date.
For example:
“Thank you, Ahmed, for your contribution.”
This is useful, but it is not enough.
Meaningful Personalisation
Meaningful personalisation begins with deeper questions:
- What has this donor or funder supported?
- What preferences have they expressed?
- What is the current stage of the relationship?
- Are they a new, repeat, or recurring donor?
- Which programmes are connected to their relationship with the organisation?
- Which communication channel do they prefer?
- Has anything happened recently that should influence communication?
- Is there an unresolved complaint?
- Is there an active grant?
- Is a report due?
- Has a recurring payment failed?
- Is there an earlier commitment that still needs to be fulfilled?
- What is the most appropriate action now?
The question therefore moves from:
“What is the funder’s name?”
to:
“What do we legitimately and reliably know about this relationship?”
3. The Personalisation Ladder
Not all personalisation has the same depth. A Personalisation Ladder can be understood across six levels.
Level 1: Identity
This includes basic information such as:
- Name.
- Language.
Level 2: Preferences
For example:
- Preferred communication channel.
- Communication frequency.
- Types of updates requested.
- Preferred language.
Level 3: Nature of the Relationship
Is the supporter:
- A new donor?
- A repeat donor?
- A recurring donor?
- A lapsed donor?
- A major individual donor?
- An institutional funder?
Level 4: Relevance
Which cause, programme, or type of funding is connected to the relationship?
Have they previously supported education, health, humanitarian relief, or a particular programme?
Level 5: Context
What is happening in the relationship now?
Did the donor contribute yesterday?
Is there an unresolved complaint?
Is there an active grant?
Is a report approaching its deadline?
Has a project concluded?
Has a recurring payment failed?
Level 6: Next Best Action
At this level, the organisation identifies the Next Best Action.
It might be:
Thank → Update → Report → Listen → Invite → Ask → Resolve → Renew → Pause
This leads to the central idea:
The highest level of personalisation is not knowing more about the funder; it is making a better decision about what should happen next.
4. Do Not Assume the Funder’s Motivation
One of the most important safeguards in personalisation is distinguishing between what the organisation knows and what it infers.
If someone has supported education programmes five times, that is meaningful information about their previous behaviour.
But it does not prove why education matters to them.
They may have a personal connection to education. They may see education as a route to empowerment. They may have responded to a particular campaign. Or the timing of a particular project may simply have suited them.
The organisation does not know the reason unless it has reliable information to support it.
Evidence can therefore be considered in the following order:
Declared Preference → Direct Interaction → Giving Behaviour → Digital Behaviour → Inference
If a donor explicitly says that they wish to receive updates about education, that is stronger evidence than simply opening an email about an education project.
This leads to two essential principles:
Observed Behaviour ≠ Donor Motivation
and:
Do Not Personalise Beyond What You Know
Good personalisation does not construct a psychological profile from incomplete signals.
5. Build a Relationship Profile, Not a Psychological Profile
A non-profit does not need to know everything about the people who support it.
It needs to know enough to manage the relationship well.
This can be organised through a Relationship Profile.
Relationship Data
This may include:
- Date of first contribution.
- Most recent contribution.
- Number of contributions.
- Giving pattern.
- Programmes or projects supported.
- Current relationship stage.
Relevant Interest Data
For example:
- Areas previously supported.
- Interests explicitly expressed.
- Programmes with which the donor has meaningfully engaged.
Engagement Data
For example:
- Responses to communications.
- Participation in activities.
- Previous enquiries.
- Engagement with campaigns.
Preference Data
For example:
- Language.
- Communication channel.
- Communication frequency.
- Types of updates requested.
- Communication permissions.
For major donors and institutional funders, the profile may also include:
- Funding areas.
- Relationship history.
- Key contacts.
- Existing commitments.
- Funding cycle.
- Reporting requirements.
- Stewardship actions.
- Grant status.
- Relevant compliance requirements.
The principle is:
Need to Know, Not Want to Know
The objective is to build institutional memory around the relationship, not to collect as much personal information as possible.
6. Personalisation According to Relationship Stage
Interest alone is not enough.
The stage of the relationship may be more important than the subject in which the donor or funder is interested.
New Individual Donor
They may need:
Introduction + Reassurance + Appreciation + Trust
Their first post-donation experience should not become a rapid succession of further funding requests.
Repeat Donor
They may need:
Recognition + Impact + Relationship Continuity
Recurring Donor
They may need:
Cumulative Impact + Recognition of Continuity + Relevant Updates
Deeper opportunities for involvement may be offered when appropriate, but should never be assumed.
More Giving ≠ Desire for More Involvement
Lapsed Donor
They may need:
Reconnection + Relevance + Understanding of Context + An Appropriate Opportunity to Return
Lapse does not necessarily mean rejection of the organisation or its cause.
Major Individual Donor
They may need:
Relationship-Based Communication + Strategic Context + Greater Depth + Impact + Appropriate Stewardship + Clear Boundaries
Institutional Funder
They may need:
Programme Fit + Evidence + Reporting + Compliance + Grant Management + Appropriate Institutional Communication
The principle remains:
Different Treatment ≠ Different Respect
7. Personalisation According to Cause and Funding Interest
Suppose a non-profit works across four areas:
Education – Health – Humanitarian Relief – Economic Empowerment
If an individual donor has consistently supported education, education-related updates may reasonably feature more prominently in communication with them.
If another donor has supported emergency response, humanitarian updates may be more relevant to their previous relationship.
With a major individual donor, the organisation may need to understand not only the cause of interest but also the type of funding in which the donor has demonstrated an interest.
With an institutional funder, the concept of interest becomes more formal and may include:
- Funding priorities.
- Programme areas.
- Geographic focus.
- Eligibility requirements.
- Grant type.
- Funding cycle.
- Reporting requirements.
- Compliance requirements.
The objective is not to conceal the rest of the organisation’s work, but to prioritise communication according to what is most relevant to the relationship.
8. Context May Take Priority Over Interest
A donor may be deeply interested in education.
But if they donated yesterday, appreciation may be more appropriate than sending another education fundraising opportunity.
A major donor may be interested in a new programme, but there may be an unresolved matter within the existing relationship that should be addressed first.
An institutional funder may be an excellent match for a new programme, but if it already has an active grant with the organisation and an overdue report has not yet been submitted, the organisation should fulfil its current obligation before introducing a new proposal.
This gives us an important principle:
Context Can Override Interest
The organisation should therefore ask not only:
“What is this funder interested in?”
but also:
“What is happening in this relationship right now?”
9. Do Not Equate Relationship Value with Funding Value
The amount of funding may influence some aspects of communication, but it should never become the only criterion.
A Donor Giving a Modest Amount Consistently
Their continuity should be recognised rather than reducing the relationship to the size of each contribution.
A Donor Making One Large Contribution
More direct follow-up may be appropriate, depending on the nature of the relationship.
A Recurring Donor
Communication may highlight the cumulative impact of sustained support.
A Major Individual Donor
A more structured stewardship plan may be appropriate.
An Institutional Funder
The relationship may require greater detail around programmes, finances, evidence, and compliance.
But these are not positions on a single hierarchy.
Individual donors, major donors, and institutional funders represent different types of relationships, not merely different amounts of money.
Funding Size ≠ Human Value
10. Personalisation Does Not Mean Writing Thousands of Messages Manually
If a non-profit has ten thousand donors, personalisation does not mean that staff must write ten thousand separate messages.
Technology can combine:
- Segmentation.
- Dynamic Content.
- Donor Customer Relationship Management (Donor CRM).
- Automation.
The overall structure of a message may remain the same while certain elements change according to:
- Relationship stage.
- Programme supported.
- Language.
- Preferences.
- Current context.
- Relevant previous activity.
Technology should help the organisation remember, respond, and make better decisions without making the relationship feel mechanical or impersonal.
Therefore:
Automate the Process, Not the Relationship
11. Start with the Relationship, Not the Organisation’s Need
Much traditional fundraising communication begins with the organisation’s need:
“We need to raise 100,000 riyals for this project.”
Relationship-aware communication may begin from a different context:
“Because you have previously supported our education programmes, we would like to share the next stage of this work and what has been achieved so far.”
The financial need does not disappear, nor should it be concealed.
It is simply communicated within a context that is more relevant to the relationship.
More importantly, personalisation should not be used only to make a fundraising request more persuasive.
What the organisation knows about the donor should also help it determine:
Is a funding request appropriate at this moment at all?
The most appropriate action may be:
Appreciation.
Or:
An update.
Or:
Listening.
Or:
Reporting.
And sometimes:
Making no request at all.
12. The Next Best Action Is at the Heart of Personalisation
Instead of always asking:
“What message should we send?”
the organisation can ask:
“What is the Next Best Action for this relationship?”
For an individual donor, the pathway might be:
Thank → Update → Educate → Invite → Ask → Pause
For a major individual donor:
Update → Listen → Brief → Discuss → Follow Up
For an institutional funder:
Report → Clarify → Submit Evidence → Resolve an Issue → Discuss Renewal
Personalisation therefore moves from being a message-writing skill to becoming a relationship management practice.
The logic can be summarised as:
Segment → Context → Next Best Action → Personalised Experience
13. Personalisation Is Not Persuasion at Any Cost
As organisations become more capable of understanding donor behaviour and preferences, their responsibility to use that knowledge appropriately also increases.
There is a difference between understanding what is relevant to a funder and using personal information to pressure them.
Personalisation should not be used to:
- Deliberately induce guilt.
- Exploit fear or grief.
- Apply inappropriate pressure.
- Suggest that continued giving is an obligation.
- Target someone using sensitive information that is not necessary.
- Conceal information that could affect their decision.
- Manufacture false urgency.
The principle is:
Greater Relevance, Not Greater Pressure
And:
Personalisation ≠ Persuasion at Any Cost
Ultimately, the decision remains with the donor or funder.
14. Privacy Is Part of Personalisation, Not an Obstacle to It
The more data an organisation holds, the greater its responsibility to protect it.
Data collection should be:
Necessary + Purposeful + Proportionate + Secure
The question should not be:
“What data can we collect?”
but:
“What is the minimum amount of data we need to manage this relationship well?”
This can be summarised as:
Collect Less → Know Enough → Use Responsibly → Protect Always
Privacy is not the enemy of personalisation.
It is one of its conditions.
If a donor feels that an organisation knows more about them than they could reasonably expect, the experience may shift from:
“They understand my relationship with them.”
to:
“They are monitoring me.”
The difference between the two is trust.
15. Personalised Communication Does Not Mean Informal Communication
This distinction is particularly important when dealing with different types of funders.
For an individual donor, personalised communication may take the form of a warm message connected to what they have supported.
For a major individual donor, it may involve a tailored briefing, a personal update, or relevant strategic information.
For an institutional funder, the most appropriate personalised communication may be highly formal and include:
Report + Indicator + Evidence + Budget Variance + Compliance Update
The communication is personalised because it is appropriate to the relationship and its obligations, not because it is casual or informal.
Therefore:
Personalised ≠ Informal
Appropriate communication may be personal, strategic, or formal depending on the nature of the relationship.
16. Personalisation Across Different Touchpoints
Personalisation should not be limited to email.
It can appear across multiple touchpoints.
Through subject matter, content, timing, and level of detail.
Text Messages
Through concise and relevant updates where the channel is preferred and permitted.
Website
By prioritising more relevant content or projects where systems and privacy requirements allow.
Donation Platform or Application
By presenting appropriate options based on legitimate previous choices.
Donor and Funder Support
Staff can have access to an appropriate relationship history so that a person does not have to explain the same issue from the beginning every time they make contact.
Major Donor Management
By maintaining continuity across meetings, briefings, follow-ups, and commitments.
Institutional Funder Management
By aligning communication with grant stage, reporting schedules, contractual obligations, and agreed contact points.
The goal is:
A Consistent Experience Across Touchpoints
17. Personalisation in Appreciation
Even appreciation should reflect the nature of the relationship.
Individual Donor
Acknowledgement may appropriately refer to the contribution or programme supported.
Recurring Donor
The organisation can recognise continuity without implying that continued giving is an obligation.
Major Individual Donor
Appreciation may be more personal, with deeper updates where appropriate.
Institutional Funder
Recognition may take a professional and institutional form, followed by communication aligned with the nature of the grant and programme.
The principle is:
The Value of Appreciation Is the Same; Its Form Differs According to the Relationship
18. Personalising Impact Communication
One of the most powerful applications of personalisation is helping donors and funders understand the impact to which their support has contributed, while maintaining accuracy in attributing results.
Individual Donor
The question may be:
“What did my support contribute towards?”
The organisation should use precise language and avoid attributing an entire result to one contribution when the outcome was achieved through collective support.
Major Individual Donor
Communication may go deeper:
- What was achieved?
- What changed?
- What did the organisation learn?
- What challenges emerged?
- What happens next?
Institutional Funder
Impact communication may require a more formal structure:
Activities → Outputs → Outcomes → Indicators → Evidence → Variance Explanation
The level and format of information therefore differ according to the relationship.
The underlying truth, however, does not change.
Personalisation does not mean changing the truth for different audiences. It means presenting the same underlying reality at an appropriate level of relevance and detail.
19. Know When Not to Communicate
Personalisation also includes timing and frequency.
One donor may prefer:
- Monthly updates.
- Quarterly reports.
- Communication only when an important milestone is reached.
- Short text messages.
- Communication during particular giving seasons.
Another may prefer much less contact.
An institutional funder may have a defined reporting schedule.
A major donor may prefer fewer but more substantive communications.
The organisation should therefore respect stated preferences and, where possible, provide clear options for managing communication.
Sometimes the most intelligent personalisation decision is:
Do Not Send This Message Now
Deliberate and respectful silence can be part of good relationship management.
20. Use Data to Provide Value, Not Only to Make More Requests
If a non-profit knows that a donor is interested in education, that knowledge should not become merely a reason to send more fundraising appeals.
It can also be used to provide:
- Impact reports.
- Programme updates.
- Relevant stories.
- New knowledge.
- Research findings.
- Learning resources.
- Evidence of progress.
- Honest accounts of challenges.
The relationship then becomes:
Value → Trust → Engagement → Giving
rather than:
Ask → Ask → Ask
A donor or funder should not feel that the organisation remembers them only when it needs money.
21. How Can a Non-profit Begin Applying Personalisation?
A practical model can begin with eight stages.
1. Know
Identify what information is genuinely available about the relationship.
2. Verify
Distinguish reliable information from assumptions or weak behavioural signals.
3. Understand the Context
Ask what is happening in the relationship now.
4. Choose the Next Best Action
Should the organisation thank, update, listen, report, ask, resolve an issue, discuss renewal, or wait?
5. Personalise
Adapt the communication or experience to the relationship.
6. Communicate
Choose the appropriate channel, timing, tone, and level of detail.
7. Listen
Observe the response and provide opportunities for feedback and preference-setting.
8. Learn
Update the relationship profile and improve the next decision.
Ensany Academy’s model therefore becomes:
Know → Verify → Understand Context → Choose the Next Best Action → Personalise → Communicate → Listen → Learn
22. How Do We Measure the Success of Personalisation?
It is not enough for an organisation to say:
“We sent personalised messages.”
It should ask:
Did the relationship become more relevant and higher in quality?
For Individual Donors
Relevant indicators may include:
- Engagement Rate.
- Second Gift Rate.
- Donor Retention Rate.
- Recurring Giving Continuity.
- Reactivation Rate.
- Unsubscribe Rate.
- Complaint Rate.
- Donor Feedback.
For Major Individual Donors
Indicators may include:
- Relationship Continuity.
- Completion of Agreed Follow-ups.
- Responsiveness.
- Stewardship Plan Delivery.
- Issue Resolution.
- Renewal or continued support where appropriate.
For Institutional Funders
Indicators may include:
- On-time Reporting.
- Relationship Progression.
- Compliance Performance.
- Resolution of Grant Issues.
- Successful Grant Closeout.
- Renewal or Follow-on Funding where appropriate.
Email open and click rates may be useful, but they should not become the definition of success.
Better Personalisation ≠ More Clicks
Rather:
Better Personalisation = Greater Relevance + Appropriate Action + Respect + Stronger Relationship
23. Do Not Let Technology Make Ethical Decisions for You
Donor Customer Relationship Management (Donor CRM) systems and automation tools may analyse large volumes of data, trigger different communication journeys, and dynamically adapt content.
But technical capability does not make every possible use appropriate.
If a system classifies a donor as “likely to increase their giving”, this does not mean the organisation should immediately ask them to increase their contribution.
If an analysis shows that a particular message produces a higher conversion rate, that does not make the message appropriate if it relies on pressure or exaggeration.
Technology can support:
Memory + Organisation + Analysis + Execution
But human and institutional responsibility remains essential for:
Judgement + Ethics + Boundaries + Contextual Interpretation
An algorithm may know that a person responded to a message. It cannot, by itself, determine whether sending another message now respects the relationship.
24. From the Name to the Relationship
Perhaps the deepest shift in personalisation is moving from the question:
“Who is this donor?”
to:
“What is the nature of this relationship, and what is its current context?”
A name identifies the person.
A record describes some of their actions.
Preferences tell us what they have chosen to communicate.
Relationship history provides context.
But taken together, these still do not give the organisation the right to claim that it fully understands what motivates a person to give.
The objective is not to know everything.
The objective is:
To Know Enough to Act Appropriately
25. When the Relationship Becomes the Starting Point
Traditional communication often begins with:
“What do we want to say?”
Relationship-centred communication begins with different questions:
What does this person or institution need to know now?
Then:
Why is this information relevant to this relationship?
Then:
What is the appropriate way to communicate it?
And finally:
What should happen next?
This change restructures the entire communication process.
The message is no longer simply an extension of the organisation’s internal marketing calendar. It becomes part of relationship management.
Ensany Academy’s Model for Personalised Communication
The approach can be summarised as:
Know → Verify → Understand Context → Choose the Next Best Action → Personalise → Communicate → Listen → Learn
Five principles govern this model:
Different Treatment ≠ Different Respect
Observed Behaviour ≠ Donor Motivation
More Giving ≠ Desire for More Involvement
Context Can Override Interest
Do Not Personalise Beyond What You Know
And one clear ethical boundary governs them all:
Personalisation ≠ Persuasion at Any Cost
The goal is not to make every donor or funder say “yes”.
The goal is to make every relationship more relevant, more respectful, more appropriate, and more honest.
Conclusion: Personalisation Is Not About Knowing the Funder’s Name; It Is About Understanding the Relationship
At a time when digital systems can automatically address thousands of people by name, using a name is no longer sufficient evidence that an organisation truly knows its donors and funders.
The real challenge is ensuring that communication reflects what the organisation genuinely knows about the relationship:
What has the donor or funder supported?
What preferences have they expressed?
Where does the relationship stand now?
What commitments has the organisation made?
What information is relevant at this moment?
What is the most appropriate next action?
And sometimes: would it be better not to send anything at all right now?
This is where personalisation moves from a marketing technique to a relationship management philosophy.
A mature non-profit does not ask only:
“How can we make this message feel more personal?”
It asks:
“How can we make this relationship more relevant, respectful, appropriate, and honest?”
The difference between the two questions is significant.
True personalisation does not begin with the Name field in a donor management system. It begins with understanding the relationship represented by that record.
Nor should its success be measured by whether the organisation can persuade every donor or funder to continue giving.
A non-profit may provide an excellent experience, treat a donor respectfully, and provide relevant information, yet that donor may still decide not to contribute again.
That is their right.
The purpose of personalisation is not to control the decision, but to improve the quality of the relationship surrounding that decision.
This principle applies across the entire funding ecosystem:
Individual donors should not be neglected.
Major individual donors should not be reduced to the size of their funding.
Institutional funders should not be treated as individual donors with larger budgets.
Every relationship has its due.
Every relationship requires an appropriate form of communication.
And no group should become less visible or receive less care simply because another provides more funding.
True personalisation does not mean treating everyone in the same way. It means understanding how to give each relationship its due without neglecting any relationship.
