Who's really paying for the fixes you keep postponing?
​

I was reviewing a donation flow for an organization doing genuinely important work when I discovered who was really paying for the fixes they'd been postponing. Imagine yourself in this donor's position: would you jump through all the hoops, or would you give up instead?
​
The problems weren't huge individually, just default settings and assumptions no one questioned. Compounded, they turned what should have been simple into something needlessly frustrating.

The country selector started with Afghanistan and made Canadian donors scroll through dozens of options. It asked for "state" instead of "province." No option for PayPal, no Apple Pay, just credit cards, which meant anyone browsing on their phone would have to get up to find their wallet (unlikely to happen). The currency defaulted to USD even though both the organization and most of their donors were Canadian.

​
​Read the full piece below.
​
​↓

Who Do You Think I Am, Anyway?

This wasn't designed for anyone at all. It was likely a template solution that never got a close enough look, or the care to adapt it for the people who would actually use it.

The organization knew the donation experience was clunky. The community giving team had been asking for changes based on donor feedback, but the communications team wasn't integrating that data into design decisions. Everyone was waiting for the website redesign budget. They were waiting for the right time to tackle their whole online experience at once.

While they waited, donors encountered these barriers and walked away.

​
The cost of waiting isn't neutral

I've been thinking about what happens while we wait for perfect conditions to fix the things we know aren't working. Back here, I told you about changing my business name at the worst possible time because waiting would have meant staying stuck. T​hen, we looked at how broken systems and disconnected experiences send messages whether we mean them to.

Here I want to talk about what it looks like to be ready enough to act, and how to know when the obvious problems you can see are signals of something deeper that needs attention.

Broken donation flows lose supporters. Websites that fail basic accessibility standards exclude the communities you claim to serve. Unclear messaging creates barriers between your mission and potential advocates.

Fixing these problems feels overwhelming, and the right time to tackle them never comes. While you wait, someone absorbs the cost. It's rarely your board. It's rarely your major donors.

It's usually the person your mission exists for.

​
You don't need perfect conditions to make meaningful progress

When you start seeing these problems as symptoms rather than isolated issues, you can ask better questions about what's actually broken.

The question that changes everything

When I work with organizations on these issues, we discover that surface problems are symptoms of one of two deeper issues.

Sometimes, it's a resource problem. They know exactly what needs to be fixed, they understand why it's important, and they just need more time, money, or people to execute. The strategy is clear; the capacity isn't.

More often, it's a clarity problem. They've been trying to fix symptoms without understanding what's creating them.

Here's the question that will save you time, money, and frustration: Is this a resource problem or a clarity problem?

​
If you can articulate exactly what's wrong, why it's wrong, and what good would look like, but you just don't have the bandwidth to execute, that's a resource problem. Hire implementers. Add capacity. Allocate budget.

If you know things are broken and you're unsure why, or you keep fixing the same issues over and over, or your solutions create new problems, that's a clarity problem. You need strategic thinking about how these systems should actually work.

​
​Ready enough to get strategic help

The organizations I work with best are the ones who've done this diagnostic and realized their issues run deeper than surface fixes. They're ready to invest in understanding how their brand, digital presence, user experience, and accessibility should work together to serve their mission.

Ready enough means clear enough problems and enough understanding of what you're really solving for.

If any of these questions are resonating and you're starting to see patterns, let's have a conversation. I help organizations figure out how their brand, digital presence, user experience, and accessibility can work together instead of against each other. We'll start by understanding what you're really solving for, then figure out your next right step from there.

Rooting you on,
Reesa

P.S. If this resonated with you, here are three ways you can let me know:

• Reply and say hello—I read every one.
• Forward this to someone who needs to hear it.
• Bring me in as a design partner when your team needs someone who actually gets it.

About Reesa​
I work with nonprofits and social enterprises on accessibility-focused branding and websites, helping make sure your marketing shows how your message matters™. Member of the Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Canada. Parent of small humans, vernacular jazz dancer, weightlifter, and unreasonably attached to a sourdough starter named Pudding.