Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Category: donor psychology

  • You have to move donors to get them to give

    Connecting with donors, listening to donors, donor love, donor centrism, making the donor feel like a hero – these are all fine and useful concepts. They show how to think about fundraising. But we can’t escape the fact that at the end of the day the fundraising appeal we send has to move donors to take action and give.

    That’s the challenge. And fortunately, Jerry Huntsinger in his Eighty-Six Tutorials on Creating Fundraising Letters and Packages has some insight.

    Jerry says it’s necessary to have the courage to use trigger words like emergency, crisis, disaster threat, immediate, urgent, and so on, in our appeals.

    Why? Because people give money to those charities that show they need it and show they need it now.

    It’s the simple truth in fundraising – which shouldn’t be surprising. It’s the same in commercial marketing and in sales. I can still remember one of my old bosses telling me that the sale goes to the salesman who wants it more.

    But why does Jerry say we have to have the courage to use those trigger words?

    Because in fundraising, there are some people who are afraid of having a nonprofit act like it needs money. They say that an appeal is too pushy, too dramatic, too emotional, too over the top, even – horror of horrors – off-strategy or off-brand, and that it needs to be toned down. Nonsense.

    A charity that needs money isn’t seen by donors as being desperate. It’s seen by donors as involved, taking charge, and being driven and motivated to do good. Those are all positive attributes for a nonprofit.

    Bottom line, the sale goes to the salesperson who shows that he or she wants it more, and the donation goes to the charity that shows their cause needs it more.

  • The easy way to boost fundraising response

    It’s probably something you don’t give much attention to when you’re creating a fundraising appeal. Most of us don’t, I’d bet. That’s because it’s so simple that it gets overlooked. It’s this: making the date of the appeal a prominent feature. Doing this can make a difference in response.

    So says Jerry Huntsinger in his Eighty-Six Tutorials on Creating Fundraising Letters and Packages. And he should know.

    Most of the time, the date doesn’t get much attention. It seems like just a business-letter mandatory, and it’s usually tucked under a logo or address block where it can hide.

    But putting the date in a conspicuous spot where donors can’t miss it says some important things to donors.

    It says the appeal is timely, which is incredibly important. Because that makes it worthy of your donor’s attention. Even before your donor starts reading, you’ve established some credibility.

    It says the appeal is intended for that donor. When it’s prominent, the date heightens the level of personalization, adding to the personalization of the address block and the salutation. These three things work together to tell your donor that this isn’t an anonymous circular they’re looking at. It’s a letter from you to them.

    Sure, making the date prominent is a small tweak, but little tweaks to response add up. It certainly can’t hurt, and it will probably help.

  • Is this the exception to the ‘no statistics in fundraising appeals’ rule?

    Tell an emotional story about one person. That’s the guideline for creating donor-focused fundraising that connects with donors and motivates them to give.

    An example from Claire Axelrad at Clarification blog drives this point home. One headline says “24,000 children die from hunger every day” with a photo of a mass of starving children, while the other one says “Abidemi is starving to death” with a photo of a sad little girl.

    Which one is the most compelling? Most people would say the one that talks about Abidemi, the little girl. She’s the “Identifiable victim,” the face of the problem that donors can relate to.

    But wait – why can’t we use both approaches? Why can’t we use the statistics – which are admittedly surprising in themselves – in combination with the one identifiable victim? Wouldn’t we be covering both bases and doing a more complete job in our messaging?  You know – speaking to the heart and the head?

    Well, not according to the research. If donors are presented with statistical information plus the identifiable victim, donations fall.

    The story about one person won’t overcome the rational thinking that statistics lead donors to. The more left-brain things your donors see, the less generous they are. But the more right-brain things your donors see, the more generous they are. It’s not because donors can’t understand statistics. It’s because donors want to know that they have a connection with the nonprofit’s work, that a problem is solvable, and that their gift matters. Speaking to the heart and not to the head does that.

  • The best reason to ask your donors more often to give

    Lots of charities are shy about asking for donations. They don’t want to mail or email too often out of fear of seeming too pushy. And even in their appeals themselves, it seems like they’re trying to work up the courage to ask, with all the hemming and hawing and beating around the bush before coming out and asking for a donation.

    Why is that?

    There’s no reason to feel that fundraising is manipulating or shaking down donors. The fact is that giving is good. It’s good for the person receiving the generosity, naturally, and it’s just as good for the giver. Both benefit.

    Christianity says so. The Bible says “whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Corinthians 9:6). (link)

    Judaism says so. Helping the poor is an obligation in Judaism known as “tzedakah” in Hebrew. In tzedakah, the gifts that are given to others eventually return to the giver. (link)

    Islam says so. Believers are entreated to be generous. The Koran says “And whatever you spend in good, it will be repaid to you in full, and you shall not be wronged.” (link)

    Buddhism says so. Generosity is one of the three tenants of Buddhism, stressing that the giver should feel a sense of joy before, during, and after the act of giving. (link)

    Atheism says so. In fact, as this report explains, even without the heavenly reward for charitable acts that most religions promise, atheists are still generous givers. They say, “We don’t need God to do good,” pointing out that, even without belief, giving is personally rewarding. (link)

    With apologies to any faith or group unintentionally omitted here, it looks like there’s one thing that people of every stripe can agree on, and it’s the foundational idea, as old as humanity, that’s it’s good to give. And if it’s good to give, then it has to be at least as good to ask.

    So there’s no reason to shy away from the ask, whether it’s in a direct mail letter, an email appeal, or face to face.

    Ask freely, ask enthusiastically, ask honestly, ask boldly, ask early, and ask often. Will you get a “too much mail” donor complaint here and there? Maybe. But you can’t let that dictate what you do for the far greater number of donors who welcome the opportunity to help. The larger issue is that giving is good for donors, good for your nonprofit, and good for your nonprofit’s beneficiaries. It’s so good, in fact, that it’s just plain good. And how many things can you say that about?

  • Here’s the point if you want to raise funds

    Red_push_pinGeneralities are okay in fundraising. But that’s the problem – they’re just okay. They don’t work as well as specifics to get donors inspired and motivated to give.

    Specifics – that’s the point in this post at Future Fundraising Now. In it, there’s a comparison between two calls to action. One is a generality: let’s end poverty. The other is specific: help pull a refugee to safety.

    Chances are that the second one, the specific one, will do a lot better to engage donors and win their support. First of all, ending poverty seems to donors to be too big of a problem to solve. Any donor knows that his or her gift won’t stop poverty.

    Second, it’s simply human nature to respond to specifics. Specifics sell, and the lesson goes all the way back to 1923, when legendary copywriter Claude Hopkins wrote: “Platitudes and generalities roll off the human understanding like water from a duck.” It was one of his immutable truths of marketing, and it’s as relevant as ever in fundraising.

    It’s tempting to reach for generalities like “make a difference,” “save the world,” “change the world,” “Stand with us,” “give hope,” or “be a hero” when we’re thinking through an appeal. In some cases, generalities like these are okay in a conversational sense to relate to donors, but generalities will never be as effective as specifics when we’re developing a fundraising offer.

    Especially for the offer, specifics can increase the credibility of the message, letting donors conjure up a more vivid mental image of the impact they can have when they give.

    As Hopkins wrote: “People recognize a certain license in selling talk as they do poetry.” You won’t ruin your case for giving if a few generalities creep into the letter copy, but when it comes to the offer and the moment of truth – actually giving a gift – focus relentlessly on the specifics to get the best response from your fundraising.

  • The right offer for your year-end appeal

    Like all appeals, your year-end appeal should start with a solid offer.

    The fundraising offer is a statement of what the donor receives in return for giving. It’s the deal, the transaction, the quid pro quo. It’s how the donor and nonprofit connect.

    The offer should convey:

    • Why you’re writing to the donor.
    • What you want your donor to do.
    • Why the donation is a good deal.
    • Why the donor should give now.
    • What the donor gets out of it (benefits of giving).
    • Why your donor’s support matters.

    While many of your other appeals during the year will be more relational, the year-end appeal is usually more transactional. So in your year-end appeal, your offer could be something like this:

    Give your tax-deductible gift now before December 31 to help us end the year strong, begin the New Year in a better position, and sustain vital programs that fight hunger and poverty for people in need.

    For most donors, this simple offer is compelling. There’s the deadline, the benefits to the donor, the specific action to take, and the reasons to do it. This is proven direct response that works.

  • Donor retention keeps falling – what to do about it

    Donor retention was down again last year. It’s part of a steady downward trend that’s been going on for the past decade. What’s going on? There are four possible reasons for donors’ increasing lack of loyalty:

    1. Completing the story in fundraising appeals – which leaves the donor out.
    2. Using safe, euphemistic language that doesn’t inspire anybody.
    3. Pairing a dire headline with a smiling face, sending mixed signals to donors.
    4. Sending out boring thank you letters.

    See more about each of each of these problems – and their solutions – in my guest post for Guidestar blog.

    Each of these can be addressed in the communications that donors receive. When retention drops, charities are forced to spend more on acquisition. And because it costs much more to acquire a donor than to retain one, charities end up spending more and more just to keep a sustainable donor base. It’s unfortunate, because donors want to give and will give if the opportunity is presented to them in the right way. See more here.

  • 5 ways to build rapport with donors

    If we want to engage donors, it’s important to reach out to them on their terms and in ways that avoid being seen as too pushy or too salesy.

    So, we want to build a friendly rapport with donors and show them that we’re on the same wavelength as they are. You can see more about it here, but there are five easy ways to do this:

    • Use logic, specifically the if-then statement to establish common ground.
    • Acknowledge your donor’s commitment, especially with donors who’ve given before.
    • Create a situation that your donor can identify with.
    • Make a confession that will create a bond with donors
    • Add a photo, so that donors can put a face with the signature on the appeal.

    Not surprisingly, donors don’t like to feel like someone’s twisting their arm in order to get them to give a gift. It’s not necessary to do that or even effective for fundraising. We can create a rapport with them instead. See more about this here.

     

  • When “Donor as Hero” is wrong for fundraising

    Lots of charities are telling their donors, “You’re a hero!” It’s become the go-to theme for fundraising of all kinds in a variety of sectors. But simply telling donors that they’re heroes falls way short of the goals of donor-centric fundraising. In fact, there are four main pitfalls to this approach:

    • It’s overused. When hero references are everywhere, they don’t mean much anymore.
    • It’s vague. Just stamping “Hero Campaign” on an appeal doesn’t really say anything that connects with donors.
    • It lacks believability. Telling donors they’re heroes isn’t a believable donor benefit.
    • It’s a metaphor not intended to be used literally. Donor-as-hero is often misinterpreted to mean that all you do is tell donors “You’re a hero!” and that makes the fundraising donor centric.

    See more about this here. Good direct response fundraising means developing a powerful offer, along with solid donor benefits and realistic reasons to give, not simply adding a label that says, “You’re a hero!”  Click here for more.

     

  • When donor centrism is at odds with your donors

    Donor centrism means putting the donor at the center of the organization’s fundraising and, in fact, everything the organization does. It means, as fundraising expert Simone Joyaux says, building trust — trust that donors play a critical role in the charity’s success, trust that the charity does worthwhile things with donations, and trust that the charity operates efficiently.

    It’s the ideal that charities aspire to, or should.

    But what happens when the work your organization is committed to doing is suddenly at odds with what your donors want? This is what that the ACLU has grappled with after the events in Charlottesville, Va., in August.

    You’ll recall that white supremacist groups marched in Charlottesville and were countered by anti-fascist protestors.

    What’s less widely known is that city officials tried to revoke the permit to protest removal of the Gen. Robert E. Lee statue. The city wanted to move the protest out of the downtown location to an open area about a mile away for easier crowd control. The city was sued by the ACLU, and the judge ruled against the city. The protest took place in downtown Charlottesville as originally planned.

    The ACLU was of course acting in accordance with its mission to defend the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. But donors were outraged. A board member even resigned over it.

    Further complicating the problem, the ACLU is one of the many charities that benefitted from the so-called Trump bump – a big increase in donations after the election of Donald Trump. The donors who gave probably did so as a form of protest against the kind of nationalism that the ACLU appeared to defend.

    So where does that leave the ACLU? Have they broken trust with their donors? And does that mean they’re not donor centric?

    For that matter, should any charity ever act in ways that differ from its donors’ wishes? Or does a charity have the obligation to pursue its mission and act on its ideals regardless of the consequences? And if so, should the charity expect its donors to come along with them and continue to give, or should the charity assume that some donors will fall away in cases like this, and just chalk it up to attrition?

    These questions go to the core of what it means to be donor centric. Usually, when we talk about donor centrism, it centers around using “you” in fundraising copy, thanking donors properly, getting donor data right to avoid embarrassing mistakes, reporting back to donors about outcomes, and so on.

    These are critical, no doubt about it. But as the episode with the ACLU shows, donor centrism goes straight to the charity’s core and its mission.

    In situations like this, the charity has to determine its next steps wisely.

    One thing’s for certain, though. An issue like the ACLU faces is not one to address in your fundraising, because that puts you in the position of explaining and educating.

    That’s not a good position to be in because, first, it pulls you away from your main goal of generating funds. Second, it’s a low-involvement strategy, because donors don’t want to be educated by the charities they support. The response to this kind of approach will likely be dismal. And third, it gets donors to think, and fundraising works best when we can get donors to feel something about the cause or the need.

    Some ways to counter bad press could include blog posts, Facebook posts, videos on YouTube, talking with reporters, and other PR strategies. Some of which the ACLU has done.

    But more to the point, in an act of donor centrism, the ACLU has recently changed its policy. According to PBS, the ACLU will no longer represent supremacist groups that demonstrate with guns. And that, no doubt, will go a long way toward re-establishing trust with donors.