Growing while Impacting

An internal look on how integrated work looks like when goals overlap and we actually cooperate internally.

This deep-dive refers to a campaign organized by Albert Schweitzer Foundation (ASF) in 2025 in Germany.

✍️ It was written by Dominika Juhásová, so if you have any questions regarding the content of this case study, feel free to reach out at dj@albert-schweitzer-stiftung.de.

For broader questions about integrated campaigning, please contact Jiří at jiri.krupa.kfp@gmail.com.

What is this all about?

With ASF, we ran a campaign against the supermarket Edeka to push the company to commit to ECC. It lasted roughly 3.5 months.

In that period almost 17,000 people sent personal emails to the company. Over 60,000 people signed the pledge. Edeka committed.

That’s the visible story.

☝️ But the more interesting story happened internally — and afterwards.

A few months later, during year-end 2025, ASF gained nearly 1,200 new regular donors.

The year before? Something around 200.

So what changed? 🤔

>>> For the first time, ASF tried a new approach and fully integrated engagement into the campaign architecture — not as communication, but as infrastructure.

Supporters were no longer mobilized occasionally. They were embedded from day one. Their actions were measurable. Their escalation was structured.

But this wasn’t something that just happened.

It required trust between teams. Respect for engagement as a strategic pillar. Willingness to experiment.

And once you do that, you don’t just grow. You impact.

This deep-dive is about that shift.

A little bit more context

Why this matters

ASF is not a newly founded organization. They have years of experience, successful campaigns behind them, and established ways of working.

And that’s exactly why this shift matters.

In larger organizations, change rarely happens through big announcements. It grows through conversations and a willingness to test new approaches — even when we think that many things already work.

What was before

Before Edeka, there was Lidl. The Lidl campaign was a major win. We secured a commitment and left Edeka as the last big supermarket in Germany without one. Strategically, that was a breakthrough.

But structurally, our technical setup was still immature.

Tracking had only just begun to improve. UTM parameters were being introduced. There was no daily reporting, no real-time overview of performance. The petition ran via an external service. There was no customized website, no intentional user flow, no automation logic that would convert those contacts into donors.

Many people who signed never made it into our mailing list — partly because of checkbox settings, partly because the DOI email was not optimized for conversion.

After Lidl, we experimented with a broader pledge — www.qualzuchtbeenden.de — to generate leads and test more structured reporting, ads, and supporter-centric language. It was a step forward.

What led to the change

Then came the Year-end fundraiser 2024 — and it underperformed significantly.

Suddenly, doubts surfaced internally:

Is this fundraising style working?
Does supporter-centric language really make a difference?
Why are we even doing this?

And yet one strategic question became unavoidable: If our goal is to change the lives of animals in Germany, can that pressure realistically come from an organization of 30 people?

Companies and politicians don’t move because one NGO wants them to. They move when citizens create pressure.

When planning the Edeka campaign, we made a conscious decision: engagement would no longer be a supporting element. It would become a structural pillar.

Not because negotiations and research weren’t essential — they were. But internally, something changed. If we wanted scale up our impact, supporters had to be embedded from the beginning.

The campaign

The pre-launch fundraiser

The pre-launch fundraiser ran from June 3 to June 21, 2025 (19 days). Here are the details about the communication plan/strategy.

Why we run a pre-launch fundraiser before the campaign

We do it to make the campaign possible and stronger:

to secure upfront funding for campaign activities (ads, creative, website/tooling, etc.) before the public launch,
to warm up supporters and build momentum,
and to use the pre-launch phase as a low-risk space to test and improve processes (especially email production, tracking, and conversion logic) before the high-pressure campaign window.

The pre-launch fundraiser brought in:

€69,030.19 in one-time donations from 1,714 donations (avg. €40.27)
€140 in recurring donations from 9 donations (regular donations were not the goal)
€69,170.19 total via the tracked online flow from 1,723 donations

In addition, another €9,885 per bank transfer (count 66).

🎉 Including those transfers, the overall total is €79,055.19 from 1,789 donations.

Note: we had approximately 180,000 contacts on our mailing list.

Write-to-website

Why?

The idea for the write-to-website didn’t come out of nowhere.

We had seen colleagues in Lithuania and Poland use these tools. Structured platforms that allowed supporters to take action directly against corporate targets — in a measurable, trackable way. ((If you’re interested in going deeper into write-to-website strategy, I highly recommend this great deep-dive by Otwarte Klatki.)

So instead of asking people via email to “please write to this company and then click on a button in the email to tell us you did,” this tool would:

guide supporters step by step on how to write an email to a supermarket
collect leads
measure completion rates
allow follow-ups and reminders
convert supporters to donors

The internal tension

There were doubts if we should build a website like that.

Our main goal was clear: People should write to Edeka. So was it wise to combine that with fundraising? Some feared distraction.

Would adding a donation ask reduce the number of people who complete the email action?

Would supporters feel overwhelmed by too many asks?

Shouldn’t we “focus on one thing only”?

It was a fair concern.

But we knew from experience that donation is not separate from engagement — it’s a form of engagement. And very often, donors become the most committed actors later. If we want long-term pressure power, we cannot treat mobilization and fundraising as separate worlds. Also - it worked for others, so why shouldn't it work for us? :)

So we decided: The fundraising ask stays. Not as the main goal. But as part of the system.

Now a bit more details...

User flow

Below is the graphical illustration of the full user flow behind the write-to-website.

Creating this visual flow was essential not only for strategic clarity, but also for collaboration with IT and for testing. It helped ensure that automations were triggered correctly and that no user path was overlooked.

Testing as one of the keys to success

We organized several structured testing rounds before launch.

The testing sheet mapped the entire intended user flow step by step. Each row represented a specific path a supporter could take, and every row was assigned to a different colleague within the organization. Their task was simple: follow the instructions exactly as a user would and document what happened.

If everything worked as expected, the cell was marked green. If something broke — technically, logically, or in terms of design — it was marked red.

We repeated this process across multiple rounds. After each round, I reviewed the results together with IT, identified where errors occurred, and adjusted the flow or automations accordingly.

To streamline communication, we used a dedicated Slack thread for bugs. Colleagues reported issues there, ideally with screenshots.

☝️ Side note: It didn’t all go smoothly of course. We did launch the website on the date we had set. But the process wasn’t friction-free.

Some delays happened — mainly due to unclear communication and shifting expectations around testing days. At one point, we lost time simply because responsibilities and handover moments weren’t defined precisely enough.

The biggest lesson?

Set up regular check-in calls with IT from the very beginning. Define clear deadlines for testing rounds and handover phases. Write them down. Confirm them. Repeat them. A structured plan is important. Sticking to it — and communicating consistently — is even more important.

Website video-tour

Little but important details:

The website incorporated several conversion-boosting elements: For existing supporters arriving via email, sign-up form fields were pre-filled to reduce friction. If a supporter’s data was already fully stored in the database, the sign-up step was skipped altogether. Automated reminder emails were set up to follow up on incomplete actions.

For inspiration in building our own write-to-website architecture, we drew on several strong examples from other organisations:

🔗 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JrMKz4OgqabvqBXdxeBcn5PUefNzlf13/view?usp=drivesdk

🔗 https://drive.google.com/file/d/17tqHqIK9FkAkaeB0GYBjdPtelqVF7EPa/view?usp=drivesdk

🔗 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-VWTd50jnmPh9jPhkYwBJNqw7rQCgnDN/view?usp=drivesdk

Results

📢 Reach & Mobilisation

77,504 people filled out the form and 63,997 out of them confirmed double opt-in
16,354 confirmed personal emails sent to Edeka
~30,250 new leads were generated

💰 Donations generated directly via the website

During the campaign period, the website generated:

705 one-time donations totaling €16,896
87 new regular donors, contributing €1,088 in monthly recurring income
Projected €27,776 in 12-month income

The average one-time donation was €23.97, while the average monthly donation reached €12.51.

Importantly, the primary fundraising objective was to gain more regular donors, not single gifts. However, supporters clearly showed a preference for one-time contributions. Despite attempts to optimize the user journey toward recurring giving, the conversion to regular donations remained comparatively low.

📊 Where did the mobilisation come from?

When looking at the strongest acquisition channels, social media was by far the top performer.

It generated the highest number of signatures as well as confirmed personal emails sent to Edeka. Throughout the campaign, performance on paid social remained consistently strong, with a relatively low cost per lead across the entire period.

The second strongest channel was email. While email brought in fewer signatures overall, it showed a significantly higher conversion from signing the form to actually sending the personal email. In other words, supporters who came through email were more ready to complete the escalation step.

This difference likely reflects audience intent. Social media was heavily used for broad mobilisation and was frequently promoted during events and public activities, where the main ask was to sign. Email, on the other hand, communicated the action step directly and clearly — which resulted in fewer signatures, but stronger follow-through.

In short: Social media delivered scale and cost-efficient lead generation. Email delivered depth and higher action completion.

Timeline - number of emails sent per day

Launch – Official start of the Edeka campaign.
“Email-action-week” – Coordinated push encouraging supporters to send personal emails.
Letter-action – Escalation to handwritten letters to Edeka’s CEO.
Negotiations with Edeka – Direct talks began; public pressure gradually decreased.

Letter-writing-page

The handwritten letter action officially launched on 12 August 2025 as the next escalation step in the campaign. It targeted supporters who had already written an email to Edeka and invited them to take an even more personal and visible action: sending a real, handwritten letter to CEO of Edeka, Markus Mosa.

The original goal was to reach 200 letters sent — and we achieved it. In total, 200 handwritten letters were confirmed and sent. Importantly, Edeka responded to every single letter, which clearly demonstrated that this form of pressure could not be ignored.

This step was crucial for two reasons:

Escalation of engagement – It moved supporters from low-barrier digital action (email) to high-commitment offline action. Writing and sending a physical letter requires time, intention, and emotional investment.
Authenticity – A handwritten letter is harder to dismiss than a digital message. It shows personal conviction.

➡️ Here is a video-documentation of the letter-writing-page: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W1S9FN_aHuJd7yNlnmKgL3CN1biYYarH/view

From campaign victory to fundraising breakthrough

1️⃣ Year-End 2025 Results (What Happened)

The December 2025 fundraiser significantly exceeded expectations:

1,278 total “Heroes for Chickens”
- 1,160 new recurring donors
- 118 upgrades
12-month income: over €134,000 (+ matching)
€126,400 used from €130,000 matching budget
Structure of donations:
- 1,153 monthly donors
- 125 yearly donors

Email was by far the strongest acquisition channel (nearly 70% of donors), followed by paid social (~20%) .

This campaign did not just meet its goals — it surpassed them.

2️⃣ Why this was (probably) not a coincidence

The Edeka campaign:

Activated tens of thousands of supporters.
Delivered a visible corporate win.
Was repeatedly communicated before and during year-end (including direct messaging to Edeka signers) .

Supporters who entered the Year-End fundraiser were mostly not passive subscribers, but as people who had already taken action — and seen impact.

The real driver was sequencing: Engagement → Public Win → Reinforced Identity → Recurring Conversion

By the time the Year-End campaign launched on December 1st, you were not building motivation from zero. You were converting momentum.

The lesson is structural: Engagement, when embedded deeply and followed by visible success, becomes the foundation for long-term fundraising growth.

☝️ But not everything ran perfectly of course. We faced challenges — especially with producing emails on time while simultaneously running a language style test (more on that in the coming months 😉). Some strategic decisions were also made quite late in the process, which added pressure to the team..

The biggest recommendation: start planning your year-end fundraiser early enough (e.g. we started in August) — particularly if you intend to build or significantly adjust the donation page. Starting to work on the website ready early was a real game changer for us and reduced stress later in the campaign.

Summary and lessons learned

What can you take from this? (if you want🙃)

✅ Don’t just inform people. Design their path to action.

Don’t treat supporters as an audience. Treat them as actors. Give them a clear, structured way to participate — and to go further. If someone completes one action, offer the next step. Build escalation intentionally. Work with engagement funnels instead of sending every ask to everyone. Not only does this increase completion rates — it also protects your relationships and your email reputation.

Empower people to act in alignment with their values. When supporters feel like creators of change rather than recipients of information, everything shifts.

✅ Think in sequences — not peaks.

Most campaigns are built around moments: launch day, press hit, final push, deadline. But what really drives results is sequencing. Ask yourself:

What happens after someone signs?
What happens after they send an email?
What happens after you win?

When actions are connected, momentum compounds. When they are isolated, momentum fades.

✅ Treat numbers as a strategic tool — not a reporting ritual.

Daily tracking is not something new. But it’s not always standard either. And even when numbers exist, they often become passive — rows in a spreadsheet, detached from strategy.

The shift happens when you stop asking: “How many emails were sent today?” and start asking: “Is this number enough to create pressure?”

If the target receives 300 emails daily — is that impactful? How many does the campaign team believe are needed to influence the target? What happens if tomorrow’s meeting fails — do we increase pressure? Before the meeting — or after? Numbers should trigger decisions. They should be discussed with campaigners, not just documented. They should influence timing, escalation, and messaging.

And to be honest — we learned this the hard way. There were moments when we forgot to have these conversations and had to deliberately return to them. This campaign showed us that cross-team dialogue around numbers isn’t automatic. It has to be intentional.

⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️

Last words...

This campaign was not about inventing something revolutionary. It was about committing to integration. The Edeka campaign worked because engagement was not treated as an add-on.

That required trust between teams. It required accepting that not everything would run smoothly because it ads more complexity to everything.

We moved from: “Let’s tell people about this campaign and ask them to join.” to “Let’s give people a tool to live their values — fight for animals.”

And then something else becomes clear: If you want impact at scale, you cannot avoid growth. There is a difference between mobilizing 2,000 people and mobilizing 50,000. There is a difference between sent emails and 20,000.

Pressure scales. Legitimacy scales. Political weight scales.

Growth and impact are not competing priorities. They are interdependent pillars.

Without impact, growth is empty.

Without growth, impact remains limited.

When engagement is built as infrastructure, growth becomes intentional — and with growth, the capacity for impact expands.

That is the shift.

Resources and useful links

Pre-launch fundraiser

🔴 best performing emails:

🔴 best performing ads:

- https://www.facebook.com/100064651485371/posts/1126322572866115/
- https://www.facebook.com/100064651485371/posts/1127141319450907/

The campaign

Page updated

Report abuse