Why your fundraising appeal needs more urgency

Posted on March 18, 2024 by George Crankovic

There’s a moment when your donor looks over your direct mail or email appeal and thinks, “I’ll put this aside for now and maybe help with that a little later.”

That’s the moment when you realize your appeal didn’t have something it needed – urgency.

Here are some ways around that problem from my article, How to Ramp Up the Urgency in Appeals and Boost Response, in Nonprofit Pro.

Use a deadline. We’re all conditioned to respond to deadlines. This includes actual deadlines (like year end, Giving Tuesday, and others), sensible deadlines (like National Doctor’s Day, fund drive deadlines, and so on), and even random deadlines (like ‘respond in the next 7 days.’). Deadlines tend to focus the mind.

Create immediacy. Center your appeal around a timeframe in the very near future. That makes your ask more actionable. “Your gift today will save the life of someone who’s homeless. Just a few weeks from now, in January, temperatures will plummet. That’s no time to be out on the street. The cold kills. Before that happens, please give now to provide safe shelter.”

Show the consequences of not giving. Often, avoiding a negative outcome is more motivating. “Our criminal justice system in this country is unjust for low-income people. Please give now to help create a more equal justice system by eliminating cash bail. Unless you help, people who are detained before trial because they can’t make bail will lose their jobs, their housing, and even custody of their children.”

Amp up the emotion. You could say, “Help reduce infant mortality in Africa” or you could make it more emotional with something like “In a cinder-block hut in Uganda, a young mother, weeping. A father, broken. Their newborn baby girl lies dead, open mouthed to the night air. Please give now when just $25 can save a precious new life.” An emotional ask is more urgent in a way that a bland, factual ask could never be.

Urgency is vital in appeals. Because sometimes donors just need that little, extra nudge to realize all the good they can do.

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why is the copy for direct response fundraising so weird?

Posted on January 15, 2024 by George Crankovic

It’s not weird, really. But it is way different from academic, business, or journalistic writing, and so it can seem weird to the (uninitiated) people at nonprofits who review copy.

As my article in NonprofitPRO points out:

Good copy is simple. It uses short words, sentences, and paragraphs, without jargon. That doesn’t mean it’s dumbed down, as some nonprofits think. That means it’s plain talk, which everyone appreciates, including donors.

Good copy is repetitive. You need to repeat the important points, because most donors don’t read a letter or email from front to back. They skim. Repeating key concepts means you have a better chance of grabbing attention.

Good copy is dramatic. To get donors’ attention and keep it, copy has to have emotional content. It has to have drama. But then it’s seen as over the top by some at the nonprofit. That’s too bad. Toning down the copy just leads to boring copy. As David Ogilvy said, “You can’t bore people into buying.” Well you can’t bore them into giving either.

Direct response copy is the way it is because that’s what donors respond to. You can see more about why this is the case by clicking here.

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is this fundraising that works?

Posted on November 11, 2023 by George Crankovic

The overline at the top of the fundraising letter reads, “You can join your neighbors to help families facing hunger.”

So far, so good. Everybody’s against hunger. Then, this: “Every $1 can help feed a family of 3!”

One thing’s for sure: that exclamation point is certainly justified if only one dollar can feed a family of three. That’s amazing, especially with food prices the way they are today.

The body copy of the letter begins: “This is the time of year when we pause to reflect on what we’re grateful for…” It goes on in that vein for a few paragraphs, talking about hunger and the holidays.

Then, here it is again: “every $1 you give to [charity] can help provide 3 meals – enough to feed a family in our community.”

So, a little confusing here. First, $1 feeds a family of three. Then, $1 provides three meals. Apparently, feeding a family means just one meal per person. But that’s not the real difficulty here.

No, the problem is the believability of the offer: $1 feeding a family of three. How could that possibly be? It’s just not a credible statement. It’s not believable. The letter explains that it’s “because of our network of food pantries and food bank partners,” but that’s really not much of a rationale.

Wait, hold on a sec. I see what’s going on here. It’s that weasel-word “help.” “Every $1 can HELP feed a family of 3.” We’re not saying that every $1 actually will feed a family of three. No, we’re saying every $1 can help.

Well, if that’s the case, then, technically speaking, every $1 that I give can help feed a family of 10. It can help feed all the families in the city. It can help feed all the families in the state. Technically, every $1 that I give can help end world hunger. Because, you know, wink, wink, we’re not saying that every $1 actually will end world hunger — we’re just saying that it can help.

Call me skeptical, but this kind of thing seems a little questionable. It’s almost as if the charity is counting on donors simply glancing at this and thinking, “Hmm, one dollar feeds a family of three? Okay, I’ll give,” without even noticing the little weasel-word that undercuts the whole thing.

It’s too bad. The appeal starts with a good template for an offer along the lines of “$XX will feed XX people,” but then it goes sideways. It uses numbers that strain credibility and defy simple common sense, and then on top of that, it makes the whole thing misleading for donors.

First of all, why raise questions in donors’ minds with numbers and dollar values that seem completely unreasonable? Second, and probably more to the point, wouldn’t it have been better to figure out what the actual dollar value is for providing a meal, and then build a case for giving around that as an opportunity for donors to do good? That way, the offer to donors would be believable as well as credible. And at the end of the day, that’s the kind of offer that’s going to work best in the short term and the long term to move donors to give and keep them giving to support a cause.

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

These 3 things are probably killing your fundraising

Posted on November 7, 2023 by George Crankovic

There are three big misconceptions that nonprofits tend to have about direct response fundraising. They’ll definitely bring down your results.

Misconception 1: “Too much mail will turn donors off.”

The fact is that donors like to give and want to give. And why not? Donors naturally want to do good. They want to make our world better. And they want to do it through your nonprofit – which is why they’re on your lists for mail and email in the first place. It just doesn’t make sense to ignore them. Let your donors hear from you.

Misconception 2: “We need to educate donors about our mission.”

There’s a place for educating and informing donors, but it’s not in your appeals. Your fundraising letters and emails should be all about your donors taking action. And that can start right at the beginning of the appeal with letter leads like “You have been specially selected to take part in this survey” and  “If your faith moves you to help children who are going hungry, please sign and return the petition I’ve enclosed. Here’s why” and  “I’m writing to you because I urgently need your help to overcome a budget shortfall that’s threatening to undo all the good we’ve accomplished together.” Your fundraising should be about action.

Misconception 3: “The letter needs to sound like the executive director.”

The fact is that most donors probably don’t know or care who the president or executive director is. That’s not why donors give. The fundraising for a nonprofit isn’t there to validate a particular nonprofit executive. It’s there to validate your donors. It’s the donor’s letter. It should be about her and her values. And if the letter should sound like anybody, it should sound like a friendly human being talking to another human being about something of concern to them both.

There’s a lot more about these three misconceptions, and you can find it here: https://tinyurl.com/4uh3ek4c

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reaching mid-level donors with direct mail

Posted on October 30, 2023 by George Crankovic

You probably hear a lot about mid-level donors, and that’s for good reason. For most nonprofits, these donors represent a major opportunity for short-term and long-term growth. It’s a revenue source that’s largely untapped. The potential is there, waiting to be realized.

So, who are mid-level donors? Defining mid-level donors will vary for different nonprofits, of course, depending on the size of your nonprofit. But in general, for many nonprofits, mid-level donors are those who give about $1,000 to $9,000 a year.

Another way to look at it comes from Sean Triner of Moceanic. The Pareto Principle tells us that 80 percent of your donations come from about 20 percent of your donors. That 20 percent consists of about 4 percent for major donors and about 16 percent for mid-level donors. Keep in mind, this is a rough guideline. It won’t work out exactly this way for every charity, but it gives you an idea of where to start in determining who your mid-level donors are.

Defining your mid-level donors is a good first step. Because the real problem is that most nonprofits tend to overlook these important donors. That’s because they give too much to be considered typical annual fund donors, and at the same time, they give too little to be considered typical major donors. They’re the “middle child” in fundraising – the ones with loads of potential who nevertheless go unnoticed.

And that’s too bad. Because when nonprofits cultivate and communicate with mid-level donors, it’s possible to:

  • Generate game-changing growth. Remember, mid-value and major donors give almost 80 percent of your revenue. But for many nonprofits, mid-level donors are underperforming. The potential is there for them to give more.
  • Create a class of donors who can be cultivated to move up to major giving.
  • Provide a stream of promising leads for planned giving and legacy gifts. Along with mid-level donors, bequest donors represent one of the best opportunities for revenue growth.
  • Increase donor retention, since donors who give at higher levels tend to remain more loyal.

Successfully cultivating mid-level donors will require research, data analysis, as well as some means of personal contact, such as telephone calls or even personal donor visits. You’ll want to contact these donors in various ways – ways that correspond to their preferences, of course.

It takes a comprehensive program. But one key to the program is a specialized direct mail appeal. All the analysis and fundraising strategy will come to nothing unless the approach to communicating with these donors is the right one.

In general, mid-level donors are less transactional in their giving than most annual-fund donors and far more relational. This is why standard direct mail probably won’t work for them. But specialized direct mail can and will.

What’s needed is a bigger, better, more strategic direct mail pack – not simply a fancier version of a typical annual-fund mailing.

Mid-level donors need to be approached in a unique way that demonstrates the impact, stewardship, and engagement they expect. In general, they respond best when there’s a specific program or initiative, when they receive plenty of information, and when they’re acknowledged as being part of a group of select supporters.

This specialized mail pack has higher production values than you’d use for regular donors. It often has a 9 x 12 envelope. It has a multiple-page letter, with copywriting that conveys the right tone and copy voice for higher-dollar donors. It’s on better-quality paper. It’s highly personalized throughout. It has multiple components – brochures, lift notes, inserts, and so on – that provide plenty of information, both in terms of factual information and emotional content. And it has a full-page reply device that not only presents the ask but reinforces the reasons to give. This is the kind of direct mail appeal that will tend to cut through the clutter and attract attention.

A pack like this will of course cost more than the mailings you send to regular donors. But to reach mid-value donors and cultivate them, it’s important to focus not on cutting costs but on maximizing revenue. There may be areas in your fundraising where it makes sense to pinch pennies, but not here. A cheap direct mail appeal for mid value donors is likely to fail. But a higher-quality appeal that communicates the exclusivity, personal attention, insider status, and insider information that mid-level donors expect is likely to succeed and generate the revenue you want.

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Should you do a year-end fundraising appeal?

Posted on October 23, 2023 by George Crankovic

Yes, and here’s why.

It’s one of the easiest appeals to create. And it can be one of the biggest revenue producers of the year. About 30 percent of most nonprofits’ revenue comes in between Giving Tuesday and December 31. At year end, donors are looking for a place to give. That place could be and should be your nonprofit.

The messaging for the appeal is usually pretty straightforward, emphasizing the Dec. 31 deadline  and how your donor’s gift will help your nonprofit end the year strong and begin the New Year strong.

The design of the appeal should be equally simple and straightforward. No need to go overboard on photos and graphics. In most cases, simple is best for year end.

And don’t forget email. A lot of online giving happens in the last three or four days of the year. Your emails can and should be showing up in your donors’ inboxes, so that they can support the good work your nonprofit is doing.

For more on year end fundraising, see Best Practices for Year-End Fundraising (nonprofitpro.com)

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The offer in fundraising

Posted on July 22, 2023 by George Crankovic

In direct response fundraising, what’s an offer?

Is it like the offer in commercial direct marketing, or is it completely different?

Why does the offer matter?

Is it really the most important thing in a letter appeal or email appeal, as some say?

If you include an offer in an appeal, won’t that just make your fundraising seem too transactional?

Is the offer just an exchange of money for outcomes, or does it do more to actually motivate and inspire donors to give?

Sure, an offer may work in a letter, but what if you’re more interested in your nonprofit’s brand. An offer doesn’t have anything to do with that, does it?

Good questions, all. Let’s take a closer look at some answers here: https://tinyurl.com/22e74ea4

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When fundraising is too cautious for its own good

Posted on July 16, 2023 by George Crankovic

You can just see the fundraising team around a conference table trying to create an appeal that doesn’t draw any complaints, doesn’t raise even one hackle, doesn’t offend in any way, real or imagined.

And the result is this:

For many of our community members, living without shelter can be traumatic and dangerous.

That’s the first line of the email. Talk about stating the obvious. “Living without shelter can be traumatic”? The only possible response to that generalization would be “no kidding.”

It continues:

And in the summertime, extreme temperatures make the experience even more perilous.

Another obvious point, made even less impactful by the cautious, corporate-memo-style phrasing. But there’s more going on here. So, being homeless is an “experience” now? And in the summer, it’s “perilous”? That’s an understatement. In the southern part of the country where this nonprofit operates, the temperatures are in triple digits, have been for weeks, and will continue to be. For someone who’s out on the street, that must feel like living on the surface of the sun. You would bake out there. And even if you could find some piece of shade, it’s so hot that it would feel like the life is being drained right out of you. “Perilous” doesn’t begin to cover it.

It continues:

Neighbors will face the risk of dehydration, heat exposure, and worse… 

Actually, they’ll die. Their hearts will stop beating, and they’ll die from the heat. As many homeless people do. Just as, in the winter months, homeless people freeze to death.

It continues.

That’s why I am writing to you today. This is a critical time of need in our community. Our community members without permanent shelter are looking for friends to stand up and help make summer not only bearable, but hopeful too.  

A couple things going on here and in previous paragraphs. Referring to someone who’s homeless as a “community member” or as “living without shelter” or as “community members without permanent shelter” or as “neighbors” just wouldn’t ring true for donors, either when it comes to what they might know about homelessness or what they might presume about it. These are obvious, hollow euphemisms.

Imagine you’re a donor, and you see a homeless man picking in a trash can for a half-eaten hamburger, do you think “Oh, there’s a community member without permanent shelter” or do you think “that man is homeless, he’s hurting, he deserves help”?

Of course there are real concerns about ‘otherizing’ the beneficiaries of a nonprofit in fundraising, and they’re valid. But when those concerns result in bland, cautious, and sterile fundraising, it’s a problem.

It’s a problem because it fails to convey the actual lived reality of the very people that the nonprofit hopes the donor will help. And in the end, that’s a disservice to the purpose of fundraising and to the people who need help. And it’s a disservice to donors, who want to accept the reality of a social ill like homelessness, confront it, and make a difference for the people caught up in it.

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One sure way to make your fundraising better

Posted on May 8, 2023 by George Crankovic

The single best thing you can do to improve your fundraising?

Come to terms with a hard truth: You are not your donors.

They’re probably older than you, for one thing, which means they have a completely different frame of reference, and for another thing, they have a completely different perspective about your organization, because they’re on the outside, not “in the bubble” like you are.

These differences in perspective between you and your donors can cause problems when you’re creating your fundraising appeals.

For example, these differences will influence the photos you use in your direct mail and email appeals, the kinds of stories you tell in your appeals, and how you write and structure your appeals.

And all three of these will have a huge impact on how much money you’ll raise. There’s more to this. Get the whole story here: https://tinyurl.com/ewntb8h9

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Want more of your regular donors to become monthly donors?

Posted on May 7, 2023 by George Crankovic

Nonprofits love monthly donors for obvious reasons. Monthly donors give consistently, require less frequent fundraising, and tend to be more loyal.

But to get regular donors to opt into monthly donor status, you have to make this seem like something they would want to do. Which makes this email effort so puzzling. It begins:

I’m deeply grateful for your support as we work together to bring needed resources to our neighbors experiencing homelessness. 

As our partner, you’ve truly provided a lifeline to many local community members, especially with the current high cost of living and the uncertainty that accompanies it. 

That’s the opening. And for these two paragraphs, I’m wondering why they’re writing to me at all, except to express gratitude and suggest that our work is completed, since I’ve apparently already “provided a lifeline.”  I’m thinking “what’s this about? Is it a thank-you email?” It goes on:

Because I know we share the vision of a community without homelessness, I’m inviting you today to join the [monthly donor program name], the [nonprofit’s] monthly giving circle. 

Members of [monthly donor program name] donate monthly to ensure vital services are available all year long. This support is critical in ending the cycle of homelessness. 

Oh, so that’s it. They want me to become a monthly donor. But wait a second, I thought that as an occasional donor I was already ‘sharing the vision’ and ‘ending the cycle of homelessness’ with the gifts I give, at least that’s what they’ve been telling me. It continues:

With your [monthly donor program name] membership, you can help countless neighbors regain self-sufficiency and hope for the future.  

Again, I thought I was already doing this with the gifts I currently give. It continues:

And by signing up online, you can automate monthly gifts, save money on postage, and help reduce administrative costs, too — all while providing access to vital care for community members facing homelessness. 

It’s only at this point, at the end of the email, that I see some reasons why I might actually want to become a monthly donor. But these reasons are only tacked on as an afterthought.

A couple things about this. First, there’s this idea that every communication to a donor has to open with gratitude for their support. Sure, there’s a time for thanking and appreciating donors. But not in every communication. What’s more, by telling me that I’ve already provided a lifeline to community members, they’re suggesting that the job is completed, so what do you need me for as a donor?

Second, if you want me to change my pattern of behavior – like going from an occasional donor to a monthly donor – you better give some pretty good reasons to do it. And those reasons should probably be at or very close to the beginning of the email in order to get my attention.

Even more to the point, those reasons should be compelling. In this email, I’m offered the opportunity to “automate monthly gifts, reduce postage costs, and help reduce administrative costs.” These aren’t exactly barnburners. Not many donors are sitting in front of their computer thinking, “Gee, I’d really like to automate monthly gifts.”

There are good, solid reasons a donor would consider becoming a monthly donor, but you have to lay out those reasons explicitly and do it in a way that’s interesting and advantageous for the donor. You can’t expect donors to fill in the gaps on their own and convince themselves. They won’t. Instead, they’ll just move onto the next email.  

Posted in copywriting, donor psychology, fundraising, nonprofit | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment