Fundraise Up 2022–2023 Donation checkout · Configurable SaaS
Making fee coverage clearer for donors
Processing fees reduce what a nonprofit receives. I designed how checkout explains fee coverage while keeping the donation amount, total, and donor’s available choices understandable.
- fee-coverage conversion
- +1.67%
- coverage opt-outs when enabled by default
- −8%
My role & the design decision
Keep the amount prominent, explain the fee on demand, and make the control match the nonprofit’s policy.
My contribution
I reviewed donation patterns and designed the amount hierarchy, fee explanation, selection states, and confirmation feedback.
Collaboration
Product, design, and engineering evaluated the interaction through A/B testing. Organization-level settings defined which choices checkout could offer.
The fee is small. The trust decision is not.
The donor’s goal is to support a cause. The nonprofit wants more of that contribution to reach its work. Asking the donor to cover costs introduces another money decision at the point of payment.
The interface has to explain what changes without making the base donation and final charge easy to confuse. A higher coverage rate is not enough if the total becomes less understandable.
The policy changes. The amount hierarchy should not.
The requirement included three nonprofit settings: coverage off, selected by default, and required. These are organization policies, not three choices every donor sees.
The component needs a consistent contract: show the applicable total, explain the fee, and offer a change only where the policy permits one. The screenshots document the optional interaction; the table describes how the configuration affects that contract.
Coverage off
No fee contribution is added.
Do not present coverage as selected or imply that an added fee is being charged.
Selected by default
The initial total includes fee coverage.
Keep the optional selection reversible and update the amount when it changes.
Required coverage
The required fee is included in the payable total.
Explain the charge; do not present it as an optional checkbox.
Give the calculation a place, without making it the page
A permanent fee breakdown would explain more upfront, but it would also compete with the donation. An information control lets donors inspect the amount and purpose of the charge when they need that detail.
That choice adds a disclosure step. The payable amount therefore needs to stay understandable before the explanation is opened.
Alternative considered
Show every cost upfront
No additional interaction is needed to inspect the breakdown.
Trade-off. Adds competing numbers and explanation to the main donation task.
Selected direction
Keep detail on demand
Maintains a prominent amount while keeping the fee explanation close to the control.
Trade-off. The explanation takes an extra action to open; the total cannot rely on that action.
The invitation
The explanation
Acknowledge the choice in the same place
Selecting coverage updates the amount and the control’s state. The brief confirmation feedback recognizes the contribution without adding another screen.
The amount and checked state carry the essential information. The animation is supporting feedback, not the only way to tell whether coverage is active.
Compare the ask, not just the checkbox
The donation-flow review examined how other products frame contributions, explain costs, and handle defaults. A visually familiar checkbox does not make a money request understandable on its own.
The design work focused on the full relationship between policy, amount, explanation, and control.
More coverage, fewer default-setting opt-outs
A/B testing reported +1.67% fee-coverage conversion and 8% fewer opt-outs when coverage was selected by default. These are coverage outcomes, not a reported increase in overall donation conversion.
- fee-coverage conversion
- +1.67%
- coverage opt-outs when enabled by default
- −8%
These changes were reported in the project summary. Baselines, measurement dates, sample sizes, and whether the figures represent relative changes or percentage points are not available.
The interaction addressed one money decision across three organization policies, rather than treating every nonprofit’s checkout as identical.
Evaluate coverage without losing sight of giving
The A/B results concern fee coverage. A broader evaluation would segment by organization policy and verify that making the fee more visible does not hurt donation completion.
Primary KPI
- Fee-coverage conversion
- Eligible optional-coverage checkouts that complete a donation with coverage enabled. Required coverage should be analyzed separately.
Supporting metrics
- Default-setting opt-outs
- Donors who turn off coverage when it is selected initially.
- Fee explanation engagement
- Use of the information control, connected to subsequent selection and donation completion.
Guardrails
- Donation completion
- Completion among comparable donation checkouts, including those that decline coverage.
- Unexpected-charge contacts
- Support or refund signals that the final donation total was misunderstood.
Configuration is part of the interaction
The hard part was keeping the relationship between amount and choice consistent as the nonprofit’s policy changed. I would next inspect results by policy and donation size, with donation completion as the guardrail.
