Reactivating lapsed donors by changing how the conversation works

A telemarketing campaign that significantly outperformed previous results by focusing on real conversations, not scripted calls

The Canadian Red Cross was looking to reconnect with monthly donors whose support had lapsed anywhere from six months to several years ago. These were people who had already committed once. The goal was to bring them back in a way that felt natural, not forced.

They had run this campaign before with another telemarketing vendor. That program was built around quick calls and tight scripts, with the focus on getting to the ask as efficiently as possible.

It delivered a response rate in the 4–5% range. That set a clear baseline — and also made it clear there was room to improve.

Changing the structure of the call

We didn’t treat this as a scripting problem. We treated it as a conversation problem.

The biggest shift was how the calls were built. Instead of moving quickly toward the ask, the script was designed around open-ended questions from the start. Donors were asked why they had chosen to support the Red Cross, and given space to answer in their own words.

That changed what came next.

Rather than delivering a set block of information, fundraisers could respond to what the donor actually said. The information wasn’t different, but how it was shared was. It came out of the conversation, instead of being dropped into it.

Those questions also gave donors a chance to talk about what matters to them. In some cases that meant sharing concerns, in others it meant explaining why they gave in the first place. Either way, it made the call feel like something more than a request. There was a reason to stay on the line, even before the ask came in.

By the time the fundraiser asked them to come back as a monthly donor, the conversation had some weight behind it. It wasn’t just a pitch.

What that looked like in practice

• Calls started with recognition of the donor’s past support, not the ask
• Fundraisers asked why the donor had given before, and built from there
• The script allowed for back-and-forth instead of a fixed sequence
• Impact was explained in context, not delivered as a block of information
• The ask came after the donor had time to engage with the conversation

Result: The difference between the two approaches shows up pretty clearly

The previous vendor’s campaign generated response rates in the mid-single digits, with a 4.6% reactivation rate and a Year 1 ROI below 1.

With the revised approach:

• 17.9% monthly conversion rate (vs. 4.6% previously)
• Lapsed monthly donors cost $257.67 to reacquire (vs. $451 previously)
• Year 1 ROI of 1.15 (compared to 0.56 previously)

The campaign also outperformed internal projections by a wide margin, with conversion over three times higher than expected.

This wasn’t a marginal lift. It was a different level of performance.

What we took from it

Lapsed donors don’t need to be convinced from scratch. They need to be reminded why they said yes the first time.

When the call is rushed, that doesn’t happen. The donor is asked to make a decision without any real context, and the easiest answer is no.

When the conversation gives them a bit of space to think about their original reason for giving, the dynamic changes. The ask lands differently, because it’s connected to something they already care about.

This campaign worked because it didn’t try to move faster than the donor. It stayed with them long enough for the decision to make sense.