flyraising — Fundraising with a tailwind

Trusted by organisations that raise millions every year

34mdonation decisions predicted and optimised by our AI

380+campaigns across Austria, Germany and Switzerland

30%market share of Austria's fundraising market

since 2022building fundraising technology for the DACH region

What's behind the numbers

Built from real campaigns

Our methods were developed through campaigns at major organisations. We'll walk you through the specifics in a call.

Privacy by design

We work with anonymised donor IDs. Personal data stays within your organisation. Your IT team doesn't need to authorise anything.

Fundraising, data and AI in one team

Fundraisers, data people and AI developers all work together here. Add in a leading expert in digital-only fundraising, whose benchmarks you can use from the start.

Enzo Duit, Founder · Book a Tailwind Check call

Headwind

Where annual planning leaves money on the table.

Most teams plan print volumes using historical figures. Daisy calculates what gets left behind in the process.

Good to have you here

Hi. I'm Daisy.

Your AI agent for fundraising data, audiences, mailings, reports, and donor questions. We'll work through it together.

Before we start, tell me a bit about yourself. What are you working on right now?

↓ Reply below – or pick an icebreaker

Hi! I'm new here – great to meet you.

Tell me who you are and what we'll be working on together.

Let's get started – what should I know about you first?

YOU

How large should our house mailings be for 2027? At what point does the volume stop paying off?

DAISY

Analyse 2026 house mailings by rank in the selection

Compare return per letter against costs

Identify at-risk donors for reactivation

Determine print volume for each mailing

I've analysed the 2026 house mailings by rank in the selection. The selection ranks all donors by expected value. I measured what each letter actually returned by rank, and compared it against cost.

Result: Return per letter by rank

Return per letter (€)

0–10

10–20

20–30

30–40

40–50

50+

Selection rank (thousands)Cost per letter approx. €0.85

Letters per house mailing from rank 40,0000

Net uplift per year across 8 house mailingsapprox. €0

What this means: From rank 40,000, a letter returns just around €0.45 against a cost of €0.85. On average, around 26,000 letters per house mailing crossed that threshold, generating roughly €11,700 in return against €22,100 in costs. Across 8 house mailings, that is around 210,000 fewer letters.

Proposed volumes for 2027

Mailing	2026 Volume	Proposed 2027
HM 1 Donation receipt	66,000	approx. 65,000
Regular HMs, each	approx. 66,000	approx. 40,000
HM Christmas	72,000	approx. 75,000
Emergency HMs, each	30,000–65,000	approx. 55,000
New: Reactivation, twice a year	–	approx. 28,000
New: Second gift	–	approx. 450/month

Part of the freed-up postage budget goes into two new mailings: Reactivation for at-risk donors who will no longer receive every house mailing, and Second Gift for first-time donors of the past 12 months.

⚠ Caveat: This only counts the donation attributed to each mailing. It does not measure whether these donors would stop giving altogether if not contacted. That is why they are not dropped: they continue to receive Christmas, emergency, and reactivation mailings.

What next? After accounting for the new mailings, around €125,000 in postage budget remains. According to the curve, additional house mailings would add very little.

Shall I look at whether we can acquire new donors more efficiently through other channels, such as online?

Compare online acquisitionSave planExport plan

Press Enter to send · Shift+Enter for a new line

Example from a real flyraising run, shortened and anonymised.

We know resources are tight.

What you get from us

Three stages, each with a clear result and minimal effort. After each one, you decide whether to continue.

Read the wind

Tailwind Check

We run a backtest on your donor data and show you how much more income was possible at the same volume.

ResultNet income potential in 3 days

Your effort2 exports and 15 minutes

Pick up speed

Online Benchmark

We run a test with Meta ads and manage it from start to finish. After around 8 weeks, Daisy reports back automatically: with cost per community member, cost per monthly donor, break-even and a recommendation for next steps.

ResultYour own online figures instead of industry estimates

Your effortA short briefing and your sign-off

Online Benchmark

The test is running.

Daisy manages the Meta campaigns and will reach out as soon as results are available.

Daisy · Week 8 of the test

DAISY

Analysing campaigns from the past 8 weeks

Calculating cost per community member and per monthly donor

Projecting break-even from initial donations

Drafting recommendation

Your test has been running for 8 weeks. I've analysed the Meta campaigns, community members and first donations. Here is the overview and my recommendation for next steps.

Overview after 8 weeks

Test budget0

Community Members0

Cost per community member0

New monthly donors, approx. €220 per person0

When a community member pays for itself

Cumulative income per community member, in €

Mo. 3

Mo. 6

Mo. 9

Mo. 12

Mo. 15

Mo. 18

Forecast from initial donationsCost per community member €11

What this means: A community member costs €11 and breaks even after about 13 months. After that, they generate income without any further cost.

⚠ Caveat: This is a forecast based on 8 weeks and 27 new monthly donors. It becomes more accurate with each additional month of data. The test does not capture donors who would have given without seeing an ad.

My recommendation: build the foundation first, then grow

Step	Budget
1 · Build the foundationCommunity Engine and Donation Engine: reach interested people directly as community members and convert them into donors and monthly donors. Less reliance on Meta.	approx. 60%
2 · Grow on performanceIncrease budget only where early signals show that cost per monthly donor is below their value of approximately €190 in year one.	approx. 40%

Goal: With every campaign, you build more of your own community and reduce your reliance on Meta.

Shall I draw up the plan for the next 6 months?

Draw up 6-month planView campaignsExport report

Press Enter to send · Shift+Enter for a new line

Worked example with illustrative figures. Not an actual run.

Fly

Community Engine and Donation Engine

You build the foundation and reduce your dependence on Meta. Interested people become community members you reach directly. From them come donors and monthly donors. Performance keeps growing, dependency keeps falling. Your community becomes your digital house file: like offline, but cheaper to reach than prospect lists.

ResultOnline acquisition you manage by donor value

Your effortWe build and operate it; you approve the content

∞

Tailwind stays

One platform that connects all your data

All sources flow into one ultrafast Data Lake. No more Excel reports. Every question is just one answer away, right down to which ad or email a donor saw.

ResultDecisions based on all your data

Your effortYou ask the questions, we connect the sources

Net income potential is the additional income remaining after all costs.

Tailwind stays

For fundraising teams with a tailwind, every question is just one answer away.

When all your sources are connected, you simply ask. Below is a real run from the product, edited for length.

Good to have you here

Hi. I'm Daisy.

Your AI agent for fundraising data, audiences, mailings, reports and donor questions. Let's work through it together.

Before we start, tell me a little about yourself. What are you working on?

↓ Reply below – or pick an icebreaker

Hi! I'm new here – great to meet you.

Tell me who you are and what we'll be working on together.

Let's get started – what should I know about you first?

YOU

How do newly acquired donors develop by channel, and what are they worth after 1, 3 and 5 years?

DAISY

Define cohort: first gift between 24 and 6 months ago

Set observation window: 6 months for all

Compare channels

Test differences for statistical significance

Unify acquisition costs per channel

Calculate value over 1, 3 and 5 years

I've run the analysis. To compare channels fairly, each cohort gets the same amount of time: donors who gave recently haven't had the chance to make a second gift yet.

Cohort: donors whose very first gift was between 24 and 6 months ago. Observation window: exactly 6 months after the first gift, the same for everyone.

Result: repeat giving rate by channel

Second gift within 6 months

direct mail

other

donation formonly 14 donors, excluded

direct mail: median days to 2nd gift0 days

other: median days to 2nd gift0 days

Channel	Newly acquired	Median first gift	Median total value, 6 mo.
direct mail	approx. 11,600	€28	€29.40
other	approx. 8,100	€45	€46.70
donation form	14	€55	€57.50

Is the difference random? No. The chi-squared test for repeat rate and the Mann-Whitney tests for value and timing each return p < 0.0001. Because donation amounts are heavily skewed, I use non-parametric tests rather than means.

⚠ Data anomaly: In "other" there is a single contact with approximately €13.5m in follow-on revenue across 4 gifts. This is almost certainly an import error. I therefore use the median and trimmed mean throughout. Please check the record in your source system.

What they're worth: 1, 3 and 5 years, after acquisition costs

Acquisition costs unified: I allocated production, postage, media and agency costs per channel to the donors actually acquired. Year 1 is observed (cohort with first gift 24 to 12 months ago). Years 3 and 5 I project from older cohorts (first gift 2018 to 2021) using a survival curve. "Net" means cumulative donation value per new donor minus acquisition cost.

Channel	Cost per new donor	Net after 1 yr	Net after 3 yrs	Net after 5 yrs
direct mail	€38	−€4	+€23	+€46
other	€52	+€6	+€52	+€89

What this means for the CAC question: Direct mail is cheaper per head but only pays back after about 14 months. "Other" costs more, but converts to repeat giving more often and faster, and is in the black after about 11 months. After 5 years, each euro invested returns roughly €1.20 net (direct mail) versus €1.70 (other). Year 5 is a projection with an uncertainty band of about ±15%. Anyone who only looks at first-gift acquisition cost would favour direct mail and leave money on the table over the longer horizon. That requires exactly this unified cost per channel.

Would you like me to save this?

Save as audienceSave as dashboard cardExport raw data

Enter to send · Shift+Enter for a new line

Example from flyraising, edited for length and anonymised. Costs and net values over 1, 3 and 5 years are an illustrative calculation with freely chosen numbers.

Next step

What's in your data?

Choose your starting point – you can tick both. Then pick a time directly in the calendar. Peak season right now? That's exactly why this is only 15 minutes.

Thank you.

Pick a time now – it only takes a minute.

Open calendar in a new tab

No suitable time available?

We can find something at short notice. Just drop me a message:

Message me

You're booked.

We'll speak soon. No preparation needed.

Where your next new donors come fromand what you can afford to spend on them. It's already in your data.

Built from real campaigns

Privacy by design

Fundraising, data and AI in one team

Where annual planning leaves money on the table.

Now the wind turns.

Three stages, each with a clear result and minimal effort. After each one, you decide whether to continue.

Tailwind Check

15 minutes

2 exports

3 days

Decision

Online Benchmark

Community Engine and Donation Engine

One platform that connects all your data

For fundraising teams with a tailwind, every question is just one answer away.

One more thing.

What's in your data?

Thank you.

You're booked.