Why the new soft opt‑in scares me
- Richard Spencer
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
I’ve spent years working with charities who care deeply about their supporters. Not in a superficial, “customer service” sort of way, but in a genuine, values‑driven, truly deeply personal sort of way.
And yet, I’ve also seen how financial and operational pressures can push even the most principled organisations into decisions that make perfect sense in the moment - but quietly erode supporter trust over time.
That’s why the new charitable purpose soft opt‑in (or the catchy acronym CPSOI) scares me. Not because it’s malicious. Not because charities will suddenly become reckless. But because it creates the perfect conditions for a classic tragedy of the commons: a short‑term opportunity that, if overused, could damage the long‑term health of the entire sector.
What the new soft opt‑in actually allows
The changes under the Data (Use and Access) Act will extend the existing PECR “soft” opt‑in, where electronic mail can be used for marketing purposes, so that it can also be applicable to charities and non-profits. This means that, from February 2026, charities can send direct marketing emails and texts to their supporters using CPSOI, without prior consent.
Specifically, they can only do this if the following is true:
The message’s sole purpose is to further one or more of the charity’s charitable purposes.
The charity collected the person’s contact details while the person was expressing interest in the charity’s purposes, or offering or providing support to further those purposes.
The person was given a simple opt‑out at the point of data collection - and in every subsequent message.
The ICO is due to release further guidance on this act any day now. But it’s already made one thing clear: the new opt-in “will not apply to people already on existing databases.”[1]
That means that this update is not a blanket permission to email everyone you’ve ever interacted with. It’s a narrow, conditional exemption. So why is it such a significant moment?
Why this change feels so tempting
Let’s be honest: the sector is under extraordinary pressure. Costs are up, income is unpredictable, teams are stretched and boards are anxious. In this context, an extension allowing charities to contact even more supporters feels like a lifeline.
It's been widely reported that the DMA estimates this could raise as much as £290 million extra annual donations across the sector[2] – a truly staggering amount. And I’m not saying there isn’t potential - used well, I believe that this can help charities to stay connected with people who genuinely want to hear from them.
That’s the intention behind this law. But intention and impact are not the same thing.
"It creates the perfect conditions for a classic tragedy of the commons: a short‑term opportunity that, if overused, could damage the long‑term health of the entire sector."
The tragedy of the commons in fundraising
In the commercial sector, a misstep for one means success for others – just look at what’s happening over at McDonald’s and Burger King right now. But that’s not the case for charities and non-profits: when the reputation of one organisation is damaged, the whole sector feels the aftershocks.
So, when one charity increases email volume, it might see a short‑term bump. But when every charity does it, supporters feel overwhelmed, intruded upon, and less trusting. The collective consequences are predictable:
More unsubscribes
More complaints
Lower lifetime value
Higher acquisition costs
And eventually - a shrinking pool of people willing to engage at all.
The new soft opt‑in risks accelerating this dynamic. Not because charities are irresponsible, but because the pressures that we face as a sector make those short‑term gains feel irresistible.
Supporter experience is not a “nice to have”
This isn’t just speculative: we know from our research with 500,000+ supporters that the warning signs are there. Here's just a few examples of real supporter feedback when asked about appropriate fundraising asks:
"I do not appreciate the number of requests for donations - it is far to [sic] many."
"It is irksome receiving constant donation requests through emails and text messages when I have already donated."
"I get too many emails from the marketing side and not enough information on the work being done."
Supporters often express that they feel “bombarded”, “guilted”, or “treated like an ATM”. I fear that the soft opt‑in could unintentionally validate the very behaviours that create those feelings - more emails to overflowing inboxes, with less consideration for the person on the other end.
On the flip-side of this, we know that charities with strong supporter loyalty raise more over time - 20% more over three years, as our research shows. They build deeper more resilient relationships, and see lower churn and lower acquisition costs as a result. The soft opt‑in may feel like a shortcut right now. But in my experience, shortcuts rarely build loyalty.
What the soft opt‑in does not allow
This is where I worry most: the gap between what the law technically permits and what people may assume it permits. For example, the soft opt‑in does not allow charities to:
Email people whose details were collected before February 2026 - unless they re‑collect them under the new rules.
Email people who have never expressed interest or support.
Email about mixed or non‑charitable purposes.
Skip opt‑outs or hide them in small print.
Treat it as a blanket permission to “email everyone”.
The law is narrower than many will assume. And assumptions are where supporter experience gets damaged.
What charities should do instead
The soft opt‑in should be treated as a precision tool, not a volume lever.
The ICO has published some guidelines to prepare for the CPSOI, so I've had a go at a loyalty-flavoured list to help charities preserve the integrity of their supporters’ experience...
Charities that want to protect supporter loyalty should:
Use the soft opt‑in sparingly, not as a default.
Treat it as a way to earn consent, not bypass it.
Prioritise relevance, personalisation, and respect for supporter boundaries.
Ensure every message delivers clear value.
Measure success through loyalty, retention, advocacy, and emotional connection - not just short‑term income.
Build journeys that make supporters feel seen, not targeted.
This is the silver lining - this is how we turn a new legal permission into the opportunity that our sector needs.
My real fear — and my real hope
My fear is simple: that the sector, under immense pressure, will see the soft opt‑in as a quick win - and unintentionally damage the very relationships it depends on.
But on the positive side, my hope is equally strong: that charities will use this moment to double down on supporter‑centred practice, not drift away from it.
Because when supporters feel valued, respected, and connected, they don’t just give more - they stay with you for the long haul. We’ve seen it time and time again. And that’s what every charity needs right now: not more emails, but more loyalty.
Don't miss a single post. Join our mailing list for insights, news and events, all helping you to improve your supporter experience: Join the About Loyalty community
