Match Moves to Donor Stage
The right move in the wrong stage damages the relationship. This lesson
gives you a six-stage progression model — early interest through to
post-decision follow-through and stall — and teaches you to match move
type to where the donor actually is, so you stop deploying the right
tactic at the wrong moment.
Why stage mismatch is the most common moves error
Most moves management failures are not about effort or intention. The fundraiser is doing the work. They are meeting the donor, recording activity, staying in contact. The problem is timing: the move is designed for a stage the donor has not reached, or has already passed.
A site visit to a donor who does not yet understand why the mission matters to her is not premature generosity — it is noise. She will be polite, she will not absorb what she sees, and the fundraiser will leave thinking the relationship has moved forward. It has not. The same site visit, placed after the fundraiser has established what personally connects her to the cause, can change her understanding in thirty minutes.
The mirror error is equally common: a fundraiser runs three more discovery conversations with a donor who has already told them what matters, what interests him, and that he wants to do something significant. Every time the fundraiser asks another exploratory question, the donor hears: “We are not ready to have a serious conversation yet.” Eventually he has the serious conversation with an organisation that is.
Stage discipline is not bureaucracy. It is the judgment to ask: “What is this donor ready for, and what is she not ready for?” — and then to design the move accordingly.
The six stages described in this lesson are not a conveyor belt. Donors do not always move through them in sequence. Some arrive already knowing what they want to do. Some move backward. Some stay at the same stage for legitimate reasons. The model exists so the fundraiser has a clear language for where a donor is and what the right next move looks like from there — not to impose a schedule on a human relationship.
The Six-Stage Moves Model
Stage 1 — Early Interest ─────────────────────── What it is: The donor is qualified, entered the portfolio, and has some connection to the organisation — through giving history, a network relationship, an event attendance, or an introduction — but their mission understanding is shallow, their personal reasons for caring are unconfirmed, and the relationship with the fundraiser is new or thin. They are in play, but not yet engaged.
What moves belong here: Listening and learning moves. The fundraiser’s job at this stage is to understand what the donor cares about, what prior experience they have of the cause, and what kind of relationship they want to have with the organisation. Moves are conversational, unhurried, and designed to produce insight, not commitment.
What moves do not belong here: Capital campaign briefings. Project proposals. Impact reports for gifts they have not made. Any move that assumes a level of connection that has not been built.
What a good Early Interest move looks like: A 45-minute coffee in which the fundraiser asks three questions and talks for fewer than ten minutes. The declared purpose is: “I want to understand whether her connection to us is personal or professional, and what she thinks the organisation does.” The move has worked if she speaks freely about what drew her here and confirms or contradicts what the referral source told the fundraiser.
What the fundraiser is watching for: Any signal that moves the donor toward Stage 2: a specific question about how something works, an unprompted reference to a personal experience with the cause, a request for more information on a particular program, or a remark that suggests the organisation matters to her beyond politeness.
Stage 2 — Active Discovery ────────────────────────── What it is: The donor is engaged and curious. She asks questions. She attends events or accepts invitations. She shows up. The relationship is warm and there is genuine mission interest, but the fundraiser does not yet know what she would give to, at what scale, or under what conditions. The donor herself may not know either.
What moves belong here: Deepening and revealing moves. Program tours. Introductions to the people doing the work. Conversations about what the donor finds most compelling. Questions that invite her to imagine the future, not just describe the present. Sharing evidence of impact that speaks to the specific interests she has already expressed. Introducing a peer or board member who shares her values, if the relationship warrants it.
What moves do not belong here: Solicitation. Any move that positions the fundraiser as expecting a gift. Detailed gift structures. Naming recognition discussions. These moves require a level of mutual understanding that Stage 2 has not yet produced.
What a good Active Discovery move looks like: A site visit to a specific program area the donor has already said she finds interesting. The declared purpose: “I want to know whether seeing the program in operation deepens her interest or redirects it — and I want to hear what questions she asks while she’s there.” The move has worked if she asks a substantive question that reveals what matters to her, or says something unprompted that shows she is imagining the future rather than observing the present.
What the fundraiser is watching for: Signals of growing commitment: she refers to the organisation in personal terms (“this is the kind of work I want to be part of”), she compares it favourably to other causes she supports, she asks about what makes a gift effective rather than what giving looks like, or she mentions the organisation to a third party. Any of these suggests Stage 3 is within reach.
Stage 3 — Growing Commitment ───────────────────────────── What it is: The donor’s connection to the mission is genuine and specific. She has expressed, through words or behaviour, that she cares about particular work and wants to be part of something real. The relationship with the fundraiser has depth. Trust is present. What remains undetermined is the form, scale and timing of her commitment — and whether the organisation has yet offered her something that matches what she wants her giving to mean.
What moves belong here: Framing and alignment moves. Conversations about what the donor wants her philanthropy to achieve. Questions about her experience with other giving and what she found meaningful or frustrating. Introducing her to the organisation’s boldest thinking — not to pitch a project, but to test her appetite for ambition. Having the senior leadership relationship, where appropriate. Beginning to understand whether there is a particular legacy, area of impact, or form of contribution that she has imagined.
What moves do not belong here: Generic cultivation for its own sake. The fundraiser at Stage 3 who continues running “relationship maintenance” coffees without directing the conversation toward what giving could mean for this donor is wasting both parties’ time.
What a good Growing Commitment move looks like: A conversation in which the fundraiser says: “We’ve been working on something ambitious that I’d love your reaction to — not as a proposal, just as a thought exercise. Can I share it?” The declared purpose: “I want to know whether her reaction to this level of ambition is excitement, hesitation or discomfort — and what that tells me about the scale and nature of the gift I should eventually prepare.” The move has worked if she reacts with personal ownership of the idea rather than polite interest — if she says “I” rather than “that would be good.”
What the fundraiser is watching for: Any shift in language from “the organisation” to “we” or “I.” A willingness to discuss what matters to her personally in her giving, not just what she admires about the charity. A question about process — “how does something like that get funded?” — that implies she is thinking about her own role.
Stage 4 — Ask Preparation ────────────────────────── What it is: The fundraiser has enough evidence to describe the gift the donor is likely to make — its approximate scale, its focus and its form. The donor’s connection to the mission is specific, her trust in the organisation is established, and the relationship is warm enough that a serious conversation would not feel abrupt. What is missing is the final confirmation that she is ready, the alignment between her intent and a specific opportunity, and the mutual permission for a direct conversation.
What moves belong here: Confirmation and permission moves. A conversation that gently tests readiness — not by asking for money, but by asking what the donor wants her next chapter to look like. A direct question about whether she has thought about her philanthropic priorities for the coming year, or whether there is an area she has been considering more seriously. Making explicit what the organisation hopes the relationship is becoming — not as pressure, but as honesty. Confirming the donor’s preferred process: does she want a formal proposal, a conversation, an introduction to the board chair, or something else?
What moves do not belong here: The ask itself belongs to a different course. What belongs here is the final preparation: confirming readiness, confirming fit, and making sure the conversation that follows is not a surprise to either party.
What a good Ask Preparation move looks like: A phone call in which the fundraiser says: “I’ve been thinking about what we’ve discussed over the past year, and I think we’ve reached a point where I’d love to have a more focused conversation about what you might want to do with this organisation. Would you be open to that?” The declared purpose: “I want to confirm that she is ready for a direct conversation, and to hear how she describes her own intent so I know what form the ask should take.” The move has worked if she says yes with energy, or if she says something that tells the fundraiser what to adjust before the ask conversation itself.
What the fundraiser is watching for: A clean yes, or qualified interest that surfaces a specific concern. Either outcome is useful: yes confirms readiness, and a concern identified now is better than a no encountered during the ask.
Stage 5 — Post-Decision Follow-Through ──────────────────────────────────────── What it is: The donor has made a decision — which may be a gift, a deferred commitment, a pledge over time, or a decision not to give now. The moves required here are not stewardship in the broad sense taught by the stewardship course. They are the specific actions that consolidate a decision made, manage the transition from an ask to a gift, or — where the answer was not yes — maintain the relationship with professionalism and without pressure.
What moves belong here: Transition and consolidation moves. Confirming the gift mechanics promptly and without drama. Following through on whatever was promised during the ask conversation — the impact report, the introduction, the recognition conversation, the timeline update. Staying present without over-communicating. Where the answer was not yes now, a respectful acknowledgment and a return to Stage 3 or Stage 2 as warranted — not a follow-up ask dressed as check-in.
What moves do not belong here: Stewardship programs, recognition systems, annual impact reports, and next-gift readiness are owned by the stewardship course. The moves in Stage 5 are the specific, short-term follow-through actions that sit between the ask and the point where ongoing stewardship takes over.
What a good Post-Decision move looks like: A handwritten note within 48 hours of the conversation, referencing something specific the donor said. The declared purpose: “I want to confirm that whatever she decided is honoured and that the next step — whether that is processing the gift or returning to the relationship — is handled without friction.” The move has worked if the donor feels that the conversation they had mattered, regardless of its outcome.
What the fundraiser is watching for: A decision that opens the next stage — a gift that invites a deeper conversation about future giving, or a deferral that identifies exactly what would need to change for a gift to happen. Both are useful. Silence after a positive conversation is a signal that the fundraiser’s follow-through failed.
Stage 6 — Stall ──────────────── What it is: The donor is in the portfolio, has not exited, but is not progressing. The stall may be at any stage: a warm early-interest donor who has not accepted an invitation in six months; an active-discovery donor whose engagement has dropped off since a promising site visit; a growing-commitment donor whose language shifted after a personal or financial event; an ask-preparation donor who went quiet after the pre-ask call. The stall is not a stage in the same sense as the others — it is a diagnostic condition that interrupts the sequence and demands a deliberate response.
What moves belong here: Diagnosis before action. The fundraiser’s first task is to understand why the donor has stalled. Is the stall caused by timing (something has changed in the donor’s life), trust (something went wrong in the relationship or communication), clarity (the donor is not sure what giving here would mean), relevance (the cause has lost its connection to what the donor cares about now), access (the fundraiser has lost the ability to reach the donor), or internal neglect (the fundraiser stopped prioritising this donor for their own reasons)?
Each diagnosis has a different correct move. A timing stall requires patience and a low-pressure re-engagement. A trust stall may require a more senior relationship, or a direct acknowledgment of the gap. A clarity stall requires a new framing of what the donor’s gift could achieve. A relevance stall requires returning to Stage 2 discovery. A neglect stall requires the fundraiser to stop apologising in their own mind and simply re-engage with honesty.
Diagnosing a stall is covered fully in Lesson 6. This framework uses Stage 6 as a label for portfolio discipline: a donor who is not progressing must be actively diagnosed, not passively held.
What a good Stall move looks like: A low-stakes re-engagement attempt that does not demand anything of the donor — an article relevant to her known interests, a brief note referencing something specific about the relationship, or an invitation to an event she would genuinely enjoy. The declared purpose: “I want to find out whether she responds, and if so, what that tells me about where the stall originated.” The move has worked if it produces any signal of engagement — a reply, a comment, an attendance — that tells the fundraiser which stage to return to and what the right next move from there looks like.
What the fundraiser is watching for: Any sign of life is diagnostic. No response after two genuine re-engagement attempts is itself a data point — and may suggest the donor should be moved to inactive status rather than carried as a nominal portfolio entry.
A note on stage regression
Donors move backward. A growing-commitment donor can shift to stall status in one phone call if the fundraiser pushes a conversation she was not ready for. An ask-preparation donor can return to active discovery if something changes in his life — retirement, a business sale, a health diagnosis, a family event — that reorders his priorities.
Regression is not failure. It is information. A donor who pulls back after a certain type of move is telling the fundraiser something. The question is not “how do I recover the momentum?” It is “what did this reaction reveal, and what stage is she actually in now?”
The practical rule: when in doubt about a donor’s stage, move back one. A Stage 3 move that lands on a Stage 2 donor will feel premature and will often push them back further. A Stage 2 move that lands on a Stage 3 donor wastes their time but rarely destroys the relationship. Err earlier, not later.
The wrong move, the wrong moment
Josephine is a 58-year-old retired business executive in Perth. She was introduced to a regional environmental land trust six months ago through a mutual board contact. She attended a donors’ reception last quarter — her first event with the organisation — and had a ten-minute conversation with the CEO. She asked a few general questions and left a positive impression. The major gift officer, Daniel, added her to the portfolio following the introduction and has since met her for coffee once.
That single meeting was warm. Josephine said she had always been interested in conservation and that her father had farmed land in the south-west. She did not ask about the organisation’s programs in detail. She asked about Daniel personally — how long he had been in the sector, why he worked there. She did not ask about giving.
Daniel’s manager has flagged Josephine for a major gift conversation before the financial year ends in six weeks. The manager notes that wealth screening estimates her capacity at $100,000–$300,000 and that she is “clearly engaged.” Daniel is preparing his next move.
What Daniel is considering: He has a new project to present — a $150,000 land purchase in the south-west region, which he thinks will resonate given what Josephine said about her father’s land. He is considering sending a project brief followed by a phone call to gauge interest, with a view to requesting a meeting to discuss the opportunity.
The tension: Josephine is in Stage 1. She is curious and warm, but her mission connection is untested, the relationship is shallow, and she has offered no signal that she is thinking about a gift. The financial-year pressure is real to Daniel’s manager. But the move being considered would skip four stages in one action.
Weak response
What Daniel does if he follows the pressure
Daniel emails Josephine on a Monday morning with a project brief attached — a two-page document outlining the south-west land purchase, the conservation case and a breakdown of how a $150,000 gift would be used. His covering email reads:
“Dear Josephine, following our coffee last month, I wanted to share a project I think you’ll find interesting. Given what you shared about the south-west, this feels like it could be a real fit. I’ve attached a brief and would love to set up a call to talk through it. Happy to work around your schedule.”
Josephine reads the email, is politely surprised by the specificity of the document, does not respond for eleven days, and then sends a short reply: “Thanks for thinking of me, Daniel. I’ll take a look when I get a chance. Busy at the moment.” No meeting is scheduled. Daniel follows up once more, receives no response, and logs the interaction as “warm — following up next quarter.”
Coaching notes
Why this fails — and what it costs
The email is not a move in the sense Lesson 1 defined. It has no declared purpose that could be tested. Daniel did not ask: “What do I need to know — or what does Josephine need to understand — before I can take this relationship one stage further?” He asked: “What project can I send that might land?” These are not the same question.
The deeper problem is stage mismatch. A project brief with a $150,000 price tag is a Stage 3-to-4 move. It assumes the donor knows what the organisation does, has a formed personal reason to care, and is ready to consider the shape of her giving. Josephine has done none of that work yet. She has attended one event, had one coffee, and asked the fundraiser what he does for a living. She is in Stage 1.
What the brief actually communicated: “We think you can give $150,000 and we have a project ready.” What Josephine needed at this stage: a reason to care that is personal to her, a deeper understanding of what the organisation achieves, and a relationship with Daniel substantial enough that a larger conversation would feel natural rather than abrupt.
The financial-year pressure is a real organisational problem. But it is internal pressure, not donor readiness. Research for Giving Australia confirms that wealthy donors respond best to requests initiated through their own networks at the right moment — not to time-pressured approaches that signal the organisation’s calendar rather than the donor’s readiness. Running a Stage 4 move on a Stage 1 donor does not accelerate the gift. It disrupts the relationship and often delays or prevents the gift entirely.
The second cost is diagnostic: Daniel has now made it harder to return to a natural discovery conversation. Josephine knows there is a project in play. Every subsequent contact she receives will be filtered through that awareness.
Better response
What Daniel does if he reads the stage correctly
Daniel looks at what he knows about Josephine: – One event attendance, one coffee, no gift history with this organisation. – Warm, curious, asked personal questions about him rather than about programs. – Mentioned her father’s land — an emotional reference, not a strategic one. – No signal about giving, scale, intent or urgency.
He identifies her correctly as Stage 1 — early interest — and designs a move accordingly. The declared purpose: “I want to understand whether her connection to conservation is personal enough to build a case for deeper engagement, and what specifically about the south-west story resonates with her.”
His move: he sends a short note — not a project brief — that references their conversation and asks a single question.
“Josephine — I’ve been thinking about what you said about your father’s farm in the south-west. I don’t know if you’ve ever been out to the region to see any of the restoration work that’s been happening, but the change over the past decade is extraordinary. If you’d ever be interested, I’d love to take you out there — no agenda, just to see it. Let me know if that would ever appeal to you.”
If she says yes, Daniel now has a Stage 2 move designed: a site visit to the specific geography that already has personal meaning to her. The declared purpose for that move: “I want to understand what she feels when she sees the land, and whether that deepens or redirects what she said about her father’s connection to the south-west.”
If she declines or does not respond, that is information too — it may indicate timing, busyness, or simply that Stage 1 is not yet complete and the relationship needs another low-demand touchpoint before she is ready to invest more time.
In either case, Daniel has not introduced a gift conversation before the donor is ready for it. He has done something harder and more valuable: designed a move for the stage she is actually in.
Coaching notes
What makes this work
Three things are different in Daniel’s better move.
First, the move matches the evidence. Daniel has one data point about Josephine that has personal weight — her father’s land. He uses it, not as a sales angle, but as the basis for a genuine invitation. The Centre for Social Impact’s research on major donor motivation confirms that cause connection — specifically personal cause connection — is the primary driver of significant Australian philanthropy. Daniel is building toward that, not assuming it already exists.
Second, the move is designed with a declared purpose and a testable outcome. Daniel knows what the move is trying to produce. He is not sending the note because it feels good to send. He is sending it to find out one specific thing about the donor: whether her reference to her father’s land is a surface detail or a genuine emotional anchor. Her response will tell him something useful regardless of what it is.
Third, the move does not skip stages. It asks almost nothing of Josephine — a reply, not a decision. It does not reveal organisational need. It offers something of genuine value to her: the chance to see something extraordinary that already has meaning in her personal history. If she accepts, the site visit will produce more actionable intelligence in two hours than three more coffees would produce in as many months.
The financial-year pressure has not disappeared. But the right answer to that pressure is an honest conversation with Daniel’s manager about what stage Josephine is actually at — not a premature move that risks the relationship to satisfy an internal calendar.
The stage is not where you want the donor to be. It is where the evidence says she is.
Financial pressure, portfolio targets and end-of-year deadlines are real. But
they describe the organisation’s calendar, not the donor’s readiness. A move
designed for the stage you want the donor to be at — rather than the stage the
evidence places her in — does not accelerate the gift. It disrupts the trust
and timing required to produce one. The fundraiser’s job is to read the stage
accurately and design the move accordingly, even when that requires a direct
conversation with their manager about what is and is not possible.
Action
Apply the six-stage model to your portfolio this week
- Take six donors from your active portfolio. For each one, identify which of the six stages they are currently in — not where you want them to be, but where the most recent evidence places them. Write one sentence of evidence that supports your assessment.
- For any donor you have placed in Stage 3 or Stage 4, check: have you had a conversation that explicitly confirmed what they want their giving to achieve? If not, consider whether Stage 2 is the more honest placement.
- For any donor you have marked as a stall, write down — before looking at the next lesson — what you think is causing the stall. Keep that assessment so you can test it against the diagnostic framework in Lesson 6.
- Identify any donor in your portfolio where the move you are planning is designed for a later stage than the evidence supports. Write down the gap between where the donor is and where the move assumes they are. Then redesign the move for the actual stage.
- If you have a donor where you are facing internal pressure to move faster than the evidence supports, prepare one sentence that explains your stage assessment to your manager, citing the specific evidence: “Based on [X], I believe she is in Stage [N]. The next move designed for this stage is [Y], and I expect it to produce [Z].”
Summary
What this lesson gives you
The six-stage model is not a pipeline diagram to fill in — it is a reading discipline. It asks the fundraiser to look at what the donor has actually said and done, identify where she is in terms of mission connection, relationship depth and commitment readiness, and then choose a move type that matches that position.
The model’s most important protection is against premature moves. A project brief sent to an early-interest donor, a solicitation conversation with a growing-commitment donor who has not yet named what she wants to do, a re-engagement campaign sent to a stalled donor without understanding why she stalled — each of these is a mismatch between stage and move type, and each one can set a relationship back further than standing still would have.
The six stages — early interest, active discovery, growing commitment, ask preparation, post-decision follow-through, and stall — give the fundraiser a shared language for discussing donor status that is grounded in evidence, not optimism. When the fundraiser and their manager use the same stage language, conversations shift from “how are things going with Josephine?” to “what evidence supports her being in Stage 2, and what move is right for that stage?” That shift is what separates moves management from activity reporting.