— Donor experience thesis

Donate, remembered.

A donation isn't a transaction. It's a moment of memory — of someone the donor has loved and lost, or someone they're afraid of losing. The job of the campaign site is to honour that moment, then get out of the way.

The donor flow, honestly

This is what the four campaign sites are actually doing right now, end to end. Each step has a measurable drop-off and a fixable cause. The numbers are illustrative — exact baselines come from your GA4 + Funraisin analytics on day one — but the structure of the funnel is universal across charity-sector sites.

Arrival — Google or referral Donor lands from "when is Daffodil Day 2026" or a state council social post. They came because they care; they're already 80% committed to the act.

↘ Typical drop: 8–12% if TTFB > 2.5s

Orient — first 8 seconds Donor needs three answers above the fold: WHO is this for, WHY this year, and WHAT do I do next. If any of the three is buried, intent evaporates.

↘ Typical drop: 15–25% on confused hero

Decide — donate vs. fundraise vs. participate Three viable paths. The site has to make the choice frictionless without manipulating it. Donors who get pushed into the "easy money" path resent it later and don't return.

↘ Typical drop: 30–40% on overloaded landing

Commit — donation amount + identity Highest-stakes step. Pre-selected amounts must reflect what your data shows actually converts, not what an exec wants the average to be. Identity fields must be the legal minimum — no marketing data grabs at this stage.

↘ Typical drop: 18–25% per field added beyond minimum

Pay — and the thank-you screen Payment must be in-line, not a redirect. The thank-you screen is the single highest-attention surface on the entire site — and the only place a donor will read a longer message. Most charities waste this real estate.

↘ Typical drop: 5–10% on redirect payment

Remember — receipt email + 7-day re-engagement The receipt is a brand moment, not a tax document. The 7-day follow-up should ask the donor to share who they donated for — converts one-off to repeat at a measurable rate.

↘ Repeat-donor lift: +12–18% with proper sequence

What I'd test in Q1

Four discrete, measurable A/B tests. Each fully owned by the Lead, sign-off from the Federation only where the brand surface is touched.

— TEST 01 · Hero clarity

"When/Who/What" above the fold

Hero copy structured to answer the donor's three questions in eight seconds. Variant: current. Variant: structured 3-line layout.

Metric: scroll-depth + click-through to donate

— TEST 02 · Pre-set amount

Donor-led vs charity-led suggestions

Pre-selected amounts based on actual donor-level data, not internal preference. Variant: current. Variant: data-driven.

Metric: average donation + completion rate

— TEST 03 · Field reduction

Strip optional fields from donation page

Move marketing-opt-in to the thank-you page. Variant: current. Variant: minimum legal fields only at checkout.

Metric: completion rate (target +5–8%)

— TEST 04 · Thank-you screen

Brand moment, not tax receipt

Use the thank-you screen for an impact statement + named-donation prompt. Variant: current. Variant: emotional + action.

Metric: 7-day repeat-action rate

Accessibility is non-negotiable

Cancer Council serves Australians at the most vulnerable moments of their lives. The campaign sites must work for the donor with grief-blurred vision at 11pm on a phone in low light. WCAG 2.2 AA is the floor, not the ceiling.

The donor doesn't care about your design system. The donor cares about their mum.

This is the principle I'd hold every CX/UX decision against. If a change makes the donation easier, faster, or kinder for someone grieving — ship it. If it serves an internal preference at the donor's expense — defer it.

Donate, remembered.

The donor flow, honestly

What I'd test in Q1

Accessibility is non-negotiable

The accessibility baseline I'd hold the team to