I want to start my comment by making clear how much I love GWWC and the people working there! The work you do in the space is vital and you’re very thoughtful about how it’s performed. Thank you! I’m sure you’ve thoughtfully considered your role and am very open to my position below being incorrect.
The reason I marked disagree is I believe GWWC should take a much more active role in donor cultivation and stewardship (or in broader high-impact fundraising at large). Countless individuals use GWWC’s tools to split donations to high impact causes, and it would make sense for GWWC to take an active role in cultivating and stewarding these donors (or at least partnering with the high impact orgs so that they can more intentionally cultivate and steward those donors).
One (admittedly very personal/biased example) - I was a donor to two high impact orgs through GWWC’s platform. All I recall receiving were automated receipt emails from GWWC; I did not receive any outreach from the orgs, nor did I receive more personalized communications from GWWC. As a resulted I will transparently share that I discontinued those donations and shifted to another high impact organization directly.
I would argue there is a major opportunity here and that GWWC should play a major role, whether as the primary org or a coordinator for the orgs to whom it regrants money. It seems this could be a very natural extension given that the 10% pledge is a major focus of GWWC.
Thanks for the kind words, and for sharing your experience so candidly.
One quick clarification first: this post covers only GWWC’s ecosystem coordination work, which is a small part of our overall strategy. Our 2026 org-wide strategy gives a view of everything else we’re focused on, including our work with donors and pledgers. We’ve now added an edit to the top of the post to make this clear—thanks.
On donor engagement, we still take your feedback here very seriously, and I’m sorry that was your experience. This is an area we’ve been focused on improving. Over the last year we’ve started rolling out a lot more personalised outreach, and we’ve been implementing much more impact reporting so donors can see what their giving achieves. We’ve taken these steps in large part thanks to feedback like yours, and we want to do a lot more of it.
Zooming out the reason we provide these ecosystem coordination goods (outlined in this post) at all is that we want to be part of lifting the whole effective giving sector up together, so that donors everywhere can be introduced to effective giving and find the impact they achieve through it so rewarding that they stay and give effectively for the long term. Experiences like the one you describe are exactly the sort of thing we want to fix.
Our Director of Community may have more to say on our exact plans for donor stewardship, but he’s OOO for a couple of weeks. I’ll flag your comment for him to take into account when he’s back.
I want to start my comment by making clear how much I love GWWC and the people working there! The work you do in the space is vital and you’re very thoughtful about how it’s performed. Thank you! I’m sure you’ve thoughtfully considered your role and am very open to my position below being incorrect.
The reason I marked disagree is I believe GWWC should take a much more active role in donor cultivation and stewardship (or in broader high-impact fundraising at large). Countless individuals use GWWC’s tools to split donations to high impact causes, and it would make sense for GWWC to take an active role in cultivating and stewarding these donors (or at least partnering with the high impact orgs so that they can more intentionally cultivate and steward those donors).
One (admittedly very personal/biased example) - I was a donor to two high impact orgs through GWWC’s platform. All I recall receiving were automated receipt emails from GWWC; I did not receive any outreach from the orgs, nor did I receive more personalized communications from GWWC. As a resulted I will transparently share that I discontinued those donations and shifted to another high impact organization directly.
I would argue there is a major opportunity here and that GWWC should play a major role, whether as the primary org or a coordinator for the orgs to whom it regrants money. It seems this could be a very natural extension given that the 10% pledge is a major focus of GWWC.
Thanks for the kind words, and for sharing your experience so candidly.
One quick clarification first: this post covers only GWWC’s ecosystem coordination work, which is a small part of our overall strategy. Our 2026 org-wide strategy gives a view of everything else we’re focused on, including our work with donors and pledgers. We’ve now added an edit to the top of the post to make this clear—thanks.
On donor engagement, we still take your feedback here very seriously, and I’m sorry that was your experience. This is an area we’ve been focused on improving. Over the last year we’ve started rolling out a lot more personalised outreach, and we’ve been implementing much more impact reporting so donors can see what their giving achieves. We’ve taken these steps in large part thanks to feedback like yours, and we want to do a lot more of it.
Zooming out the reason we provide these ecosystem coordination goods (outlined in this post) at all is that we want to be part of lifting the whole effective giving sector up together, so that donors everywhere can be introduced to effective giving and find the impact they achieve through it so rewarding that they stay and give effectively for the long term. Experiences like the one you describe are exactly the sort of thing we want to fix.
Our Director of Community may have more to say on our exact plans for donor stewardship, but he’s OOO for a couple of weeks. I’ll flag your comment for him to take into account when he’s back.
Thanks again!
Ah this makes perfect sense, thank you Luke! I appreciate the thoughtful response.