{"id":4402231478100,"date":"2026-04-06T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.philanthropy.com\/?p=4402231478100"},"modified":"2026-05-01T17:29:38","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T21:29:38","slug":"gen-z-wants-to-fundraise-for-you-stop-scaring-them-off","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.philanthropy.com\/solutions\/gen-z-wants-to-fundraise-for-you-stop-scaring-them-off\/","title":{"rendered":"Gen Z Wants to Raise Money for You. Here’s How to Stop Scaring Them Off."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last summer, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital<\/a> made a decision that many nonprofits may find uncomfortable: They supported online personality Ryan Trahan<\/a> as he raised money for them from his 22 million YouTube followers \u2014 on his own terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than dictating how Trahan should communicate with his audience, leaders from St. Jude asked, “How can we support you?” They were deeply involved in the process \u2014 providing information and offering support \u2014 but they didn’t micromanage his messaging. They recognized that he is the expert at communicating with his audience. And they understood that their role was to give him all the information he needed and trust him to present it authentically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trahan’s campaign raised $11.6 million for St. Jude<\/a>, with $5 million coming from midlevel donations ($5,000 to $10,000) from companies and individuals. But the impact went beyond the dollar amount. The campaign reached new audiences and offered a family-friendly event that attracted support from every type of business, including construction companies, car dealerships, local dermatologists, and gaming brands \u2014 many of which had never before engaged with St. Jude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

St. Jude’s approach is rare among nonprofits that offer peer-to-peer fundraising, and that disconnect is creating a problem the sector can no longer ignore. Here are some ways to fix it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Give volunteer fundraisers flexibility.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During a recent conversation I had on peer-to-peer fundraising, a nonprofit leader was puzzled about why fewer people were signing up to raise money on their organization\u2019s behalf, despite robust marketing efforts and a compelling mission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I asked what flexibility fundraisers had to personalize their pages or messaging, the response was immediate and definitive: The fundraiser shouldn’t get to choose. The organization should control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This mindset reveals a fundamental tension. The desire for brand consistency is colliding with what motivates people to fundraise in 2026. Right now, control is winning \u2014 and participation is losing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer people are giving, even as the total amount of money donated hit a high-water mark of $592.5 billion<\/a> in 2024. The Fundraising Effectiveness Project’s most recent data<\/a> shows donor numbers declined 1.9 percent year-over-year, with the steepest drop among small-dollar donors \u2014 those giving $100 or less, who represent more than half of all donors. The number of small-dollar donors fell 10.5 percent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peer-to-peer fundraising shows similar trends. While the top 30 peer-to-peer programs<\/a> saw participation increase 3.6 percent to 2.6 million participants in 2025, they remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Organizations that host traditional walks, runs, and team fundraising events, which once reliably generated thousands of participants, are seeing registration numbers plateau or decline.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n \n
\n