Donor Insights

Donor economics

Thank-You Call Economics: What a Five-Minute Call Is Worth

A five-minute call that asks for nothing preceded larger next gifts and better retention. The dollar math is worked here.

By Donor Insights · Published September 15, 2026 · Updated September 7, 2026 · 7 min read

Enter your email and we will send the PDF, plus the daily stewardship read each morning. You can unsubscribe from any email.

Key takeaways

  • In Penelope Burk's classic studies, donors who received a thank-you call from a board member within 24 hours gave 39% more on their next gift and were giving 42% more 14 months later.
  • That research is 2000s-era. Treat the effect sizes as directional, and take the baselines from today: first-time donor retention sat at 18.9% in 2025 (FEP).
  • Practitioner data puts first-time donors who received two or more thank-you calls within 90 days at 58% retention, meaning 58% gave again the following year, against 33% for uncalled donors.
  • On an illustrative 1,000-donor file with a $50 average gift, that retention gap is worth about $12,500 in second-year gifts, before any of Burk's larger-gift effect.
  • A call program needs no budget line. It needs a list, a script that thanks without asking, and a quiet hour a week on someone's calendar.

A five-minute thank-you call is worth more per minute than almost anything else on a fundraising calendar. In Penelope Burk's donor-centered research, donors who received a thank-you call from a board member within 24 hours of their gift gave 39% more the next time they were asked, and 14 months later were giving 42% more than donors who were never called, as summarized by Neon One. Nobody asked those donors for anything on the call, and that is the design: the call carries thanks with no request attached, which is a touch almost no donor ever receives.

What does the research say a thank-you call is worth?

Burk's studies, run across thousands of donors, found three linked effects. Donors called by a board member within a day of giving made next gifts 39% larger. The same called donors were giving at levels 42% higher when researchers checked back 14 months on. And donors thanked personally within 48 hours were four times more likely to give again at all. The speed of the written acknowledgment matters too, and our thank-you timing guide covers that. This piece is about the phone call as a program, because the call is where the measured effects were largest.

39%
larger next gifts from donors who received a board member's thank-you call within 24 hours, in Penelope Burk's classic researchNeon One, on Penelope Burk's donor-centered research

Does a thank-you call still matter in 2026?

The problem it addresses has gotten worse, not better. In 2025, overall donor retention sat at 43.3% and first-time retention at 18.9%, while total dollars grew 5.0% and the number of donors fell 3.6%, according to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project. Four of five first-time donors never give again, and most hear nothing between their gift and the next appeal. A call program is aimed at exactly that silence.

18.9%
of first-time donors gave again in 2025, the cohort with the most to gain from a five-minute callFundraising Effectiveness Project

More recent practitioner research points the same direction. Among first-time donors who received two or more thank-you calls within 90 days of their gift, 58% gave again the following year, against 33% of donors who were never called. That figure comes from practitioner data rather than peer review, so hold it more loosely than the FEP numbers, but the gap it describes is large enough to survive a wide margin of error.

58% vs 33%
of first-time donors gave again the next year, called twice with thanks within 90 days versus never called (practitioner research, not peer-reviewed)Neon One, on thank-you call retention data

What is a call program worth in dollars?

Picture a fictional organization, Cedar Bend Food Pantry, that welcomes 1,000 first-time donors this year with a $50 average gift. The figures below are illustrative, using the practitioner retention rates above to show the shape of the math rather than to stand as a benchmark.

Illustrative second-year value of a called versus uncalled first-time cohort (hypothetical figures, rates from practitioner research)
PathDonors giving next yearSecond-year gifts at $50
Never called (33%)≈ 330≈ $16,500
Called twice within 90 days (58%)≈ 580≈ $29,000

The gap is about $12,500 in the second year alone. The cost side: two five-minute calls to 1,000 donors is roughly 167 hours of talking spread across a year, or about $75 of second-year giving per hour on the phone, before Burk's larger-gift effect and before retained donors compound in later years, which is where donor lifetime value does its work. The context makes the case stronger: Adrian Sargeant's acquisition economics put the cost of recruiting a donor at two to three times their first gift, with the relationship turning profitable in 12 to 18 months. A first-time donor has not yet paid back what it cost to recruit them, and the call is how you protect that investment through the first-year payback window.

Who should make the calls?

Burk measured board members, and a call from a volunteer leader carries weight precisely because the donor knows they were not paid to make it. But the effect is not a board monopoly. Staff and trained volunteers run effective call programs everywhere, and a warm call from anyone beats a perfect call from no one.

The non-negotiable is that the call asks for nothing. The moment a thank-you call turns into a solicitation, it becomes one more appeal, and the donor treats it as one. A working script has four beats:

  • Thank the person, not the transaction. Their generosity made something specific possible.
  • Say what the gift is doing, in one or two concrete sentences.
  • Ask nothing. Not for a gift, not for an event, not for a survey.
  • Leave room for the donor to talk. A question they ask is worth more than anything in the script.
Donors who got a prompt, personal thank-you were four times more likely to give again.
Penelope Burk's donor-centered research, as summarized by Neon One

How do you run a call program without burning anyone out?

The failure mode of call programs is scope. An organization resolves to call everyone, calls nobody by March, and concludes calls do not work. Size the program to the hours you actually have, in this order:

  1. 1.Call first-time donors first. At 18.9% sector retention, that cohort has the most to gain from any touch, and it renews itself weekly.
  2. 2.Batch the work. Pull the week's first gifts once, and call within 48 hours of each where you can.
  3. 3.Leave the voicemail. The donor still hears their name and a thank-you, and the caller still finishes the list.
  4. 4.Book the second call inside 90 days, tied to a report on what the gift did, so the touch has news to carry.
  5. 5.Track the called cohort's second-gift rate against last year's uncalled donors on your own file, so the program earns its hour with your numbers, not Burk's.

That last step replaces the published rates with results from your own file. Donor Insights reads your contacts and gifts the way a fund reads a portfolio, so the called cohort's second-gift rate is a number you can watch move rather than an article you once read. The methodology starts from your own giving records, and the same platform shows whether the quiet hour on the phone is showing up where it should, in donors still giving a year later.

Frequently asked questions

What should a thank-you call say?
Thank the person rather than the transaction, say in a sentence or two what the gift is doing, ask for nothing, and leave room for the donor to talk. Five minutes is plenty, and a voicemail that does the same job still counts as a touch.
Should a thank-you call include an ask?
No. The measured effects came from calls with no solicitation at all. The moment the call asks for something, it becomes another appeal, and the donor reads it that way.
Who should make thank-you calls?
Burk's research measured board members, whose calls carry weight because the donor knows they are volunteers. In practice, staff and trained volunteers work too. A warm call from anyone beats a perfect call from no one.
How soon after the gift should the call happen?
The research effects were measured on calls within 24 hours, and personal thanks within 48 hours preceded a fourfold rise in repeat giving. In practice, a weekly calling block that reaches most new donors within a few days beats a same-day standard nobody sustains.
Is a call program worth it for a small organization?
Especially. A small file makes full coverage possible: a few dozen first gifts a month is one volunteer hour a week. The illustrative math scales down cleanly, and the relationships are the ones a small organization most needs to keep.

Sources

  1. Neon One, Calling to Thank Donors (Penelope Burk's research and practitioner call-retention data)
  2. Fundraising Effectiveness Project, Q4 2025 report (2025 data)
  3. AFP, Fundraising Effectiveness Project reports strongest revenue growth in five years, even as donors decline
  4. Bloomerang, Donor Retention Math Made Simple (Adrian Sargeant's acquisition and retention economics)

Disclaimer

Educational purpose. This article is published for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment, financial, funding, donor, tax, legal, accounting, or fundraising advice, and reading it creates no advisory, fiduciary, or client relationship. Consult your own qualified professionals before making decisions.

Not an offer. Nothing here is an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy, sell, donate to, or fund any organization or security. Pray, Inc. DonorInsights.com is not a registered investment adviser, broker-dealer, law firm, accounting firm, or fundraising counsel, and publishes only impersonal commentary of general and regular circulation.

Public data, no guarantee. Analyses of named organizations rely on public sources such as IRS Form 990 filings, an organization's own published materials, and reputable press. These sources are believed reliable but are not audited or independently verified by us. The content may contain errors or omissions and is provided "as is" with no warranties of accuracy, completeness, or currency.

Opinions and estimates. Donor-level and financial figures for named organizations are our inferences and opinions, including forward-looking projections that are not guarantees of future results.

No affiliation. Named organizations are independent and are not clients, affiliates, sponsors, or endorsers of DonorInsights.com. Third-party names and trademarks belong to their owners and are used only for identification and commentary. Links to third-party sites are not endorsements.

No reliance. We accept no liability for any action taken based on this content.

Corrections. This analysis reflects public sources available as of publication. If you are an organization discussed here, or any reader, and you believe a figure or statement is inaccurate, email hello@donorinsights.com and we will review it and correct any error promptly.

Your use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use.