Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This study investigated choices made by fundraisers when crafting appeals to unknown potential donors. Specifically, it asked if and how fundraisers’ choices vary depending on whether they were raising money for a population that faced societal stigma. Research on fundraising often focuses on donor behavior, without considering the type of the beneficiary and the discretionary decisions made by fundraisers. This study drew on literature about stigma and literature about fundraising communication. It employed mixed methodologies to explore this research question. The first part of the study used an online experimental survey, in which 76 practicing fundraisers wrote an acquisition appeal letter for a nonprofit after random assignment to benefit either clients with mental illness (stigmatized population) or older adults (non-stigmatized population), then answered attitudinal questions about the beneficiary population. Participants believed individuals with mental illness were more stigmatized than older adults. Analysis of the letters using linguistic software showed that fundraisers used more humanizing language when writing about the non-stigmatized population, compared to the stigmatized population. Several aspects of the appeal letters, identified through existing theory, were examined but did not vary at statistically significant levels between the groups. Exploratory factor analysis showed several patterns of elements recurring within the letters. One of these patterns, addressing social expectations, varied significantly by client group. In the second part of the study, semi-structured interviews with fifteen participants showed that writing for the stigmatized client population raised special concerns in communicating with potential donors: many interviewees described identifying client stories and evidence to justify helping stigmatized clients in a way that wasn’t thought as necessary for non-stigmatized clients. They also attempted to mitigate threatening stereotypes to maintain readers’ comfort levels. Fundraisers regularly evaluated how readers were likely to think of different kinds of clients. Fundraisers’ own implicit assumptions also came into play.