Why UX research is harder (and more important) for NGOs and nonprofits
Most website briefs we see from complex organisations contain a fundamental contradiction: multiple departments, all with legitimate authority, all describing a different website. This post explains why that happens and what it costs you, and why UX research is what NGOs and nonprofit organisations need most to avoid it, even though it's often the first thing to get cut from the budget.
NGOs and nonprofit organisations are structurally different to commercial organisations
Working with both commercial and non-commercial clients, we've come to understand how different the needs of each really are, and each comes with its own challenges. Commercial projects usually have a more clearly defined target audience. NGOs are wider by nature, and that width can make research feel daunting before you've even started.
A few things pull in different directions at once:
- Mission, audience and operations don't always want the same thing from the site.
- There usually isn’t a single product owner in the NGO world. Decisions need to pass through several layers of approval, and stakeholder buy-in is essential to any UX project succeeding, as this translates into resources and bandwidth.
- Budgets for research tend to be tighter than in the commercial world.
- Success itself is harder to define. Commercial clients often have a clear call to action; NGOs are more often working towards awareness and impact, which is a much fuzzier thing to agree on internally.
Because of the complex nature of NGOs, and the different priorities pulling on them, it's even more important to do the research, otherwise your message and your journey get diluted. A few things we see across NGOs of different sizes:
- Internal politics can override user needs.
- Internal jargon often isn't understood by the average person .
- There's a need to report on achievements, impact and expenditure, which pulls website content in a different direction than "what does the user actually need to see."
- The work NGOs and nonprofits do is genuinely great, but offering too many stories and too much content can be counterproductive if it isn't done strategically.
Because the audience is diverse, investing in really getting to know them is invaluable. Without data, the website defaults to the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion). Board, CEO, comms, end users: each has a legitimate but different idea of what the website is actually for. This is where a large hierarchy of decisions starts to dilute the message. Not because anyone involved is wrong, but because nobody is holding the whole picture, so the loudest voice in the room, rather than the actual user, ends up shaping the site.
The hidden cost of not doing research
Not doing research doesn’t lower the cost, it just delays the spending. Skip the discovery phase and you will pay for it later in post-launch fixes and beyond. Not only will this translate into technical spending but also more customer support effort to deal with frustrated users. So even if it feels like you haven’t got the time to do research, doing it will save time in the long run.
Funding cycles can make this worse. A project can get redirected mid-build the moment a new grant arrives with its own requirements, or a new comms strategy lands. Research gives you a documented reason for your decisions, one that's harder to argue with or override.
It also does something less obvious: it takes the politics out of internal disagreements. It's much easier for a comms director and a programmes director to agree on what users actually need than to agree on each other's opinions. So the hidden cost of skipping research isn't just technical - it's the ongoing cost of decisions getting made on politics instead of evidence.
And increasingly, it isn't optional. Donors and funders are starting to ask for evidence of user-centred design as part of digital funding bids. Research isn't just good practice anymore: in some sectors it's becoming a funding requirement, which means skipping it can cost you the funding itself.
What good UX research actually does here
- Gives you something more powerful than opinion: evidence.
- Protects budget and timeline by surfacing conflicts early, before they become expensive.
- Helps stakeholders see that research serves their goals too, not just the end user's.
- Navigating stakeholder dynamics takes a thoughtful mix of listening, collaboration, communication, influence and negotiation. Stakeholders are usually busy, but they're crucial to good UX.
As Nielsen Norman Group put it, stakeholder engagement looks different depending on your organisation's UX maturity. At lower maturity levels, where UX is absent, limited, or just emerging, you'll spend more energy simply advocating for the work and educating people on the value of a user-centred approach. At higher maturity, when UX is already built into how the organisation works, engaging stakeholders takes less effort up front, but more time goes into balancing competing needs and priorities once everyone's already bought in.
If your purpose is impact, you can't skip talking to people
If your purpose is to make a positive impact in the world and in the lives of the people who use your website or services, you cannot skip talking to those people. Especially because the audience is diverse, investing time in really getting to know them isn't a nice-to-have: it's the thing that protects your budget, your timeline and, ultimately, your mission.
Further reading:
- Audience insight on a budget: what three charities have learnt — CharityComms
- Making the case for audience insight in your charity — CharityComms
- Collaborating with stakeholders — Nielsen Norman Group
- Return on investment for usability — Nielsen Norman Group
- Lessons from charity UX design — Charity Digital
- How to plan a project — Charity Digital
-
Cristina Muñoz
Digital Account Manager
