Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Blog

  • Donors Are Nutty! This Might Help Explain Why

    In a logical world, the bigger the problem is, the more donors would give to solve it.

    But people aren’t logical (it’s what makes us so much fun!).

    You’ve probably heard about the identifiable-victim effect. It tells us that donors will give more to help a single victim than to help many victims. This is the research where people were given a story about a starving girl in Africa, but when that same story was paired up with statistics about starvation, people gave less.

    The typical explanation is that statistics blunted the emotional impact of the story.

    But what’s really at work, according to other research, is donors’ sense of perceived efficacy, the feeling about how much their gifts will do. In one test, the first group of donors got a photo and story of a poor child. The second group got photos and stories of two poor children, and were told they could give only to help one child or the other, not both. The second group — those who got two stories and photos — gave less. The same result happened when the second group got photos and stories of seven children in need.

    The conclusion? When donors get information about additional people needing help — whether it’s just one other person, seven others, or statistics about millions of people — that information discourages them from giving. Donors consider the people who won’t be helped, feel less good about giving, and conclude that their gifts won’t do as much good as they want — then don’t give. Of course, rationality says that helping even one person is better than helping none. But donors don’t see it that way, and no amount of logic is going to change that.

    What to do? Here are two approaches.

    1. Focus on the human drama, not the scope. It’s a natural reaction to want to make the problem seem big by citing statistics, referring to others in need, showing images of people in crisis, and so on. But that doesn’t work. It doesn’t even work in disaster fundraising, where the need is often shockingly large. Avoid the temptation – and it’s a strong one – to hype the size or breadth of the problem. Instead, focus on presenting the individual human drama as compellingly as possible in copy and images.
    2. Present the right offer. The offer you present to donors has to be calibrated to donors’ sense of proportion. If possible, be specific. Say $XX does a specific thing, and make sure that the specific thing is reasonable to your audience. You can’t expect a donor to solve world hunger. But you can expect a donor to help one hungry child when the gift will make a clear, defined difference. That he or she will gladly do.

  • Book review: “Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser”

    “Your nonprofit is siloed.” That’s something you never want to hear. If you do, then your organization’s departments all have their own agendas, lack a common vision, and fail to communicate with each other. Everyone is working at cross-purposes, trying to go in different directions at once, instead of one clear direction.

    That’s why the new e-book — Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser  — from Nonprofit Funderland is particularly relevant. It combines the experience and insight from the three principals of the organization — all veteran fundraisers — who’ve seen when nonprofits work well and when they don’t. That is, when nonprofits are centered around the donor and when they’re not.

    One anecdote in the book sums it up. A donor visits a nonprofit for a meeting with the executive director only to be met by a rude receptionist who ignores him, continuing instead to talk on the phone with her friend. The donor, thoroughly insulted, has his meeting with the executive director. A short meeting, to announce that he’s ending his support. Generous, long-term support. Ouch. Lesson learned.

    That’s the underlying spirit of the book — that a nonprofit centered around the donor, and therefore free of silos, is a better nonprofit. Better at fundraising and better at achieving its mission. In exploring this theme, the book delves into concepts of interest to fundraisers in organizations large and small. For example:

    • Creating a nimble nonprofit where good fundraising can thrive.
    • How and where to find new audiences for fundraising.
    • Why a nonprofit can and should be entrepreneurial.
    • Applying the 80/20 rule to donor engagement versus cultivation in your online fundraising.
    • Ways your digital strategy can improve donor acknowledgement.
    • Addressing the fear nonprofits have about asking too often.
    • What to do when your board isn’t fundraising-friendly.
    • The strongest tactic for fundraising in a recession (yes, the next one is coming).
    • Using communications to engage donors.
    • How to connect with major donors and win greater support.
    • Pitfalls to avoid if you’re considering an event.
    • Why fundraising, despite its challenges, is still a noble and personally satisfying profession.

    Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser covers a lot of ground. The only problem is that the content is so good you’ll find yourself asking drill-down questions about details that are outside the scope of the text. But that’s a minor concern. Because the lessons in the book are large and insightful. After reading it, you’ll come away with clear, specific ideas not only about how to do fundraising but also how to think like a fundraiser.

  • Power to the pronoun

    Most of us think of pronouns like “I” and “we” as mere function words in copy. We use them to start a sentence or move it along to get to the good, meaty words that are marbled with meaning.

    But research shows that simple pronouns say a lot more than we think.

    For example, in both speaking and writing, higher-status people don’t use the personal pronoun “I” very much. This contradicts the stereotype of the captain of the boardroom constantly exclaiming “I, I, I” and “Me, me, me.” In fact, higher-status people use “I” far less, while lower-status people use “I” far more.

    This is the case, as the researchers theorized, because the lower-status people are focusing more on themselves. They say “I” more often because they’re more self-conscious and aware of how they’re seeming to the higher-status person.

    On the other hand, leaders and other higher-status people tend to use the plural pronoun “we” much more than their followers. That’s because leaders are more “other-focused.” Their attention isn’t on themselves but on the group, the goal, and the big-picture externalities.

    What does this mean for fundraising? The copy in an appeal can convey a whole range of emotion from outrage to benevolence to fear to hope. Along with that, we’re always aware when writing copy that our appeals are essentially a dialogue between writer and reader. And during that dialogue, the focus shifts from writer to reader and back again, as in any conversation.

    So, based on this research, using “I” in copy can be an effective way to put the donor in a position of higher status, to display more thoughtfulness or self-awareness on the part of the writer, or to show vulnerability, as when reacting to an instance of human suffering, for example. “I slumped in my chair when I learned Miriam had TB.”

    And, “we” can be used to show that the focus is outer-directed, to convey the need for teamwork, or to suggest that the writer is taking charge and demonstrating leadership — “We need to end poverty now!” One caution here. In marketing and fundraising copy, readers might assume that “we” is being used in the organizational sense — that the organization is the “we” that’s talking. It’s important to make it clear from the context that the “we” refers to writer and donor together, marching toward a goal.

    Admittedly, these are subtle points. But as anyone who’s ever sweated over the right verb or poured over test results knows, it’s the subtleties that can add up to big differences in response.

  • This phony best practice for subject lines has to go

    You’re creating an e-appeal, and suddenly you’re staring up at the north face of the 70,000-ft mountain you must climb. You have to write the subject line.

    It has to stand out in the inbox, intrigue your donors, motivate them to act, and move them to click, but despite everything the subject line has to do, most self-appointed experts are unmovable on one thing: it has to be short, short, short.

    “Keep it under three words,” they say. “Under two? Even better!”

    But according to a study in which 12 billion — yes, billion — subject lines were analyzed, there’s no correlation between subject line length and open rates. Short subject line of, say, 12 characters, didn’t command people to click, but then again, longer subject lines of 150 characters didn’t repel people either. Subject-line length just didn’t matter.

    So, how about this — let’s stop creating rules that are irrelevant to actual practice and restricting ourselves and hamstringing our appeals in the process.

    We’re communicating with donors. So depending on a myriad of factors — everything from the offer to the nonprofit itself to donor psychology — there are times when a short subject line like “hey,” from the famous Obama email campaign, will work like gangbusters. And there are times when a long subject line like, “Fight killer diseases with your gift multiplying 50 times,” will get clicks like crazy. There is no empirically researched and optimized length for subject lines.

    And that’s good. We should embrace the ambiguity and enjoy the process of connecting at a human level with donors. Because otherwise, fundraising would be all science and no art. And that would be no fun.

  • 3 social proof techniques that signal donors to give more

    It can be tricky to upgrade donors, but the truth is that most donors would probably give more if they’re asked with social proof.

    According to research, if donor’s think their gifts are lower than those of others, they’ll tend to give more. There’s a conformity effect at work.

    In addition, donors want to feel that they’re giving their fair share. So if they think they might be doing less than that, then social proof can influence their gift amount.

    What’s more, donors assume that a charity asking for and getting larger donations is a higher-quality organization, much like a bigger price tag on a TV says “better.”

    With this donor psychology in mind, how can we build support with social proof? In one study, researchers told donors calling into a public radio station fund drive that the previous donor had just given a gift of a certain amount, and then researchers asked the caller for his or her gift.

    When the amount of the previous gift mentioned was at or above the average gift, donors tended to give more. And when that amount was among the highest donations received, donors tended to give still more. Social proof was at work.

    We can use this learning and adapt it for the copy in our appeals. Here are three easy things to try.

    1. In the body copy, you can include a simple line like, “Many of our supporters are giving $XX3,” right before the ask. Of course the $XX3 amount would be one of the higher amounts in the string relevant to that donor – a gift upgrade. As in the public radio fundraiser, this simple line of copy can provide the social proof that signals what the appropriate gift amount is.
    2. To reinforce this approach, you can add a circle around that same dollar value in the gift string on the response device, with wording like, “many donors give this amount.” This technique alone often increases average gift, but when combined with the line of copy described above, it can be even more effective.
    3. Since social proof tends to work best when the right action to take is unclear, you can try increasing the number of gift handles. Instead of the usual three or four, the gift string can be increased to eight or ten gift handles, presenting donors with a broader array of choices, while of course highlighting the preferred amount .

    These three techniques are subtle and simple ways to incorporate social proof. They’re easy to do and just might produce a bump in average gift. Why not test it in your next appeal?

     

     

  • Trouble cultivating younger donors? This might be why

    For many of us, caring about others just isn’t that important.

    That’s one of the shocking findings of a new study conducted by a researcher at Harvard University. http://sites.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/making-caring-common/files/executive_summary.pdf

    First, let’s take a look at the subject of the study, high-school kids. And then, we’ll look at another part of the research, the kids’ parents — the younger donors that most nonprofits are trying to cultivate.

    The study surveyed 10,000 middle and high school students. When asked what was most important to them — achieving at a high level, happiness, or caring for others – a full 80% said achieving at a high level or happiness, but only about 20% said caring for others.

    Naturally it’s distressing that kids place so little importance on helping others, but what’s probably happening is that the children are taking their cues from parents.

    While parents say it’s important to raise children who are caring, the kids themselves are reading the subtext. About 80% of children said that their parents are more concerned with achievement or happiness than with caring for others. The kids felt the same way about their teachers.

    The children were also three times more likely to agree than disagree with this statement: “My parents are prouder if I get good grades than if I’m a caring community member.”

    The message that adults are sending is loud and clear — put yourself and your success first.

    These parents and teachers are the younger donors that fundraisers are trying to engage and motivate. And while they may say that caring for others is important, it seems, according to this study at least, that they’re more concerned with their own success in life than the welfare of others.

    The takeaway for fundraising? The doing-good-is-its-own-reward theme doesn’t work for younger donors the way it did for previous generations, particularly the World War II generation. And because of that, if we want to reach younger donors, it’s more important than ever in our fundraising appeals and other donor communications to emphasize positive results, superior outcomes, and success stories. Charities have to show that they represent the success and achievement that younger donors are placing so much importance on and striving for themselves. It’s one way for nonprofits to be more relevant to younger donors, connect with them on their terms, and ultimately win their support.

  • How to Use Verbal Images in Fundraising Copy

    When it comes to engaging your donors, you can’t just tell. You have to show. And you do it with verbal images. See my article in Fundraising Success magazine: 7 Ways to Use Verbal Images to Pull Donors into Your Appeal. http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/article/7-ways-use-verbal-images-pull-donors-into-your-fundraising-appeal/1

    A verbal image is a succinct, sharply focused word picture that readers will immediately get. It’s concise, clear, and concrete, letting donors see exactly how their support will make a difference.

    You can use verbal images to:

    1. Present the need.
    2. Convey the leverage in your offer.
    3. Show donor involvement.
    4. Put the donor’s gift into action.
    5. Highlight your donor’s impact.
    6. Convey your nonprofit’s work.
    7. Show donors how and why to give.

    Take a look at the entire article at http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/article/7-ways-use-verbal-images-pull-donors-into-your-fundraising-appeal/1.

  • Afraid of missing out? You’re not alone

    Social proof is a powerful motivator in fundraising. We might, for example, localize an appeal with the donor’s city name to imply that others in the neighborhood are giving, or we might add “Many donors give this amount” on a reply device. This is standard wisdom-of-the-crowd social proof.

    But there’s another form of social proof that we can evoke, and that’s the fear of missing out.

    This fear is hardwired into us. Nobody wants to be the odd man out if everyone else seems to be doing something or if everyone else is snapping up some new gadget. It’s a natural feeling. The reaction is natural too — “I want to do what everybody else is doing.” Social proof.

    So here are three possible ways to evoke the fear of missing out in fundraising.

    Use deadlines. Fear of missing out makes the deadline a natural motivator. It’s one reason that year-end appeals tend to do well. The December 31 deadline is built right in. But if you look, you’ll probably find deadlines for many of your appeals, simply because most projects have a defined beginning and end. If not, try to create a deadline that’s believable, and — this is important — explain why the deadline exists.

    Funny thing about deadlines, though. People tend to put off taking action until the last minute when they’re faced with a deadline. So don’t allow too much time for a response. You might even consider including an inducement for early action.

    Demonstrate scarcity. “Supplies are limited.” It’s classic “fear of missing out.” In fundraising, the supply could be the money in a matching grant. When it’s used up, the matching grant is over. The supply could be a quantity of medicine that’s available to be shipped to poor countries. Donors need to give now in order to have their gift cover the cost of shipping. The supply could be the number of backpacks with school supplies that a charity has on hand to give to children. Donors have give now before the opportunity runs out. Look for ways to make the point, “When it’s gone, it’s gone!”

    Show the result of inaction. It’s easy to get so wrapped up in telling donors how much good they can do that we forget to represent the other side of the coin — what happens when the donor doesn’t give. So describe the dystopia that results when your donor doesn’t give — the lack, the pain, the suffering, the ever-growing need. The message your donors will receive is, “You’ll miss out on doing good and making a difference,” and it’ll help them decide to give.

     

     

  • What you need to know about GiveDirectly

    Attention executive directors! Are you stressing about overhead costs? Staying up nights wondering how to prove the impact of your programs? Tying yourself into knots over infrastructure?

    Worry no more! Now you can forget infrastructure, forget staff, forget people in the field. In fact, forget programs and services. Because now you can help people just by giving them money.

    That’s right, you just raise the money and then hand it over to the people who need it. Suddenly the headaches of running an organization are gone. Just give away money!

    Okay, enough sarcasm. You’ve probably heard about Giving Directly, the charity that gives money to people in need. It’s been a media darling lately.

    And it is a good idea … as far as it goes.

    GiveDirectly is something akin to Kiva, the microfinance charity. Kiva works because donors like thinking that they can change the world — or at least one person’s world — for a $25 gift that provides, say, a couple of chickens to a poor family. This is simple, direct, help-the-poor-help-themselves charity work. All good.

    GiveDirectly is an even more stripped-down version. They give money to people in need and let them decide how to use it. There’s no infrastructure and virtually no staff. There aren’t even any programs. This is simpler and more direct than microfinance, with the added appeal of trusting people to know best what they themselves need.

    But hold on a minute.

    Let’s say money starts going to individuals in a Kenyan village. One buys a cow. One a motorbike taxi. Another a roof for his hut. And so on. Now what? Who’s seeing the big picture? Who’s doing the planning? Who’s creating the path to sustainable economic development? Who’s seeing that charity and government are working together to create the rising tide to lift all boats?

    Giving someone the money to buy something that helps them personally may be part of the solution, but it’s not the whole solution. You can’t build a burgeoning economy and social instutions on one-cow dairy farms.

    Some in the media are suggesting that GiveDirectly is a radical new model that will change how charities operate. Radical? Yes. Interesting? Sure. Worthwhile? Absolutely. A total game-changer? Uh-uh.

  • Another cross-channel strategy to (maybe) add to the list

    A lot of donor activity these days is cross-channel. A typical cross-channel matchup is direct mail and website. Another is direct mail and email. Now we can add one more to the list — TV and twitter.

    Well, maybe. This is very new — actually still in beta — and as you’ll see, it ideally does involve a third channel as well. Twitter is testing a service that brings TV viewers and Twitter users together in an interactive way. This is no small thing, since about 32 million people in the U.S. tweet about the programs they watch. The potential is there.

    This service lets advertisers send targeted tweets to people watching the programs in which the ad has appeared. Of course this blending of TV advertising and Twitter is ideal for packaged goods — products like chewing gum and shampoo. You can just see American Idol viewers being thrilled to receive a tweet with an offer for Dentyne after watching the commercial about kissable breath.

    But it could work for fundraising too. Let’s say you’re an animal-welfare charity, and you’re running a fundraising spot on TV. With Twitter’s TV ad targeting, you can send tweets to people on Twitter as they watch the program in which your TV spot runs. The tweet reminds viewers about the ad they just saw, reinforces the need to save animals, and offers a link that takes viewers to your website to give.

    Or let’s say you’re a disaster-relief charity. When a major disaster occurs, the news coverage is usually wall-to-wall. You could send tweets about your relief and recovery work (with a link to your donation page) to people on Twitter who are viewing that coverage.

    This is a way to reach out to potential donors with a second medium that they’re already using as they watch TV, and it makes your TV spot suddenly interactive.

    Granted, Twitter isn’t the donor-relationship hotspot that Facebook is right now. But that will likely change as Twitter continues to evolve. Depending on your cause, your offer, and your audience, this Twitter-TV connection might be something to keep an eye on.