Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Category: fundraising

  • “The Science of Ask Strings” and a surprising idea to test for fundraising results

    The gift string is one of the most overlooked parts of fundraising but also one of the most important. That’s the assertion in “The Science of Ask Strings,” a fascinating paper by Nick Ellinger. (You can download it here.)

    Ellinger delves into the research on gift strings and talks about the mental shortcuts (heuristics) that we as humans take all the time in our everyday lives, and he shows how the science of gift strings can fit into those shortcuts to match donors’ expectations and inspire their giving.

    In that spirit, I offer an idea for gift string testing, and it’s this: simply take the liberty of filling in a gift amount by adding a check mark in the gift string. Your gift string would look like this (if your gift strings are based on highest past contribution):

    [✓] $HPC   [ ]$HPC x 1.5   [ ]$HPC x 2   [ ]Other: $ _________

    So you’d clearly be emphasizing the $15 highest past gift, like this:

    [✓] $15   [ ]$25   [ ]$40  [ ]Other : $__________

    In this case, you’d be using the concept of anchoring, which Ellinger discusses. You’re anchoring to the donor’s past gift, and the result might be more consistent giving from donors at that level with the check mark. Ellinger also suggests considering Most Recent Contribution for gift strings as opposed to Highest Past Contribution, since most donors are more “anchored” to their last gift than to their biggest.

    What’s more, as Ellinger notes, the first gift-ask position has greater impact on response rate and average gift than the other positions. Again, the check mark could reinforce the prominence of the first ask.

    If you test a check mark, be sure to use that and not an x, like this: [x]. The x says “no,” and your donors could assume that you’re blocking them from that particular gift option for some perplexing reason.

    A check mark, on the other hand, says “yes.” This will likely convey to donors that you’re simplifying the difficult task of choosing how much to give. You’re actually helping them out. And they might appreciate it — and show it by giving the gift that you suggest.

    You could test this with the other amounts in the string, of course, to see how donors might react, like this:

    [ ]$15    [✓] $25    [ ]$40   [ ]Other : $__________

    [ ]$15    [ ] $25    [✓ ]$40   [ ]Other : $__________

    Each of these options — with the check mark in the first, second, or third position — would likely produce very difference test results.

    A check mark in the second position, for example, might be an effective upgrade strategy.

    In a donor appeal, the check mark could also work well when combined with a social-proof line on the response device like, “Many donor are giving this amount.”

    A check mark might also be worth testing in acquisition to reinforce a certain giving amount or to try to upgrade donors, based on past acquisition results.

    If you’re really into testing and wiling to experiment, you could try it with the open-ask option in a donor appeal, like this:

    [ ]$15    [ ] $25    []$40   [✓]Other : $__________

    Gift string testing is an ongoing process for a lot of fundraisers. If you have the chance to test the check mark, it’d be great if you could share the results.

     

  • Why the plain talk of our presidential candidates is vital in fundraising appeals

    One thing that can kill a fundraising appeal is trying to sound intelligent by using fifty-cent words.

    That’s why, in this political season, it’s good to look at the two master communicators who are pitching their ideas — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They both speak at lower grade levels. That’s important for us as fundraisers because:

    • Average Americans read at a seventh-grade level.
    • Simple language is more direct.
    • Simple language makes you seem more capable.

    See more at my guest post at Future Fundraising Now.

  • When stories in appeals kill your fundraising results

    With all the articles, blog posts, and white papers about storytelling in fundraising, it’s easy to think that all you have to do is drop a story into an appeal and there you go — success.

    Not necessarily so. See my guest post at Future Fundraising Now for more.

    It may be the stories themselves causing the problem. Here are five things to look out for that could be making your stories less effective:

    1. Avoid “purple prose.” Let the story tell itself.
    2. Keep it simple. Convoluted stories make donors give up.
    3. Make it about the donor. She’s the most important part.
    4. Hold back the solution. Let the donor provide it.
    5. Give the story space to breathe. Pacing is vital.

    See more on each of these points here.

    Stories can and do work. But it’s not like flipping a switch. Connecting with donors takes stories that are believable.

  • When too much emphasis ruins your fundraising appeal

    To add emphasis to fundraising copy, you can use boldface, italics, underling, all caps, and even asterisks and other symbols.

    But if you overuse them, as legendary adman Herschell Gordon Lewis says, “When you emphasize everything, you emphasize nothing.”

    Sometimes this happens when fundraisers get desperate in their attempt to motivate donors. Sometimes it happens when the graphic designer gets carried away with adding visual baubles to the page.

    But as this guest post on Future Fundraising Now points out, there are two reasons to use emphasis:

    • To alert readers to a specific part of the message.
    • To add inflection to the copy voice.

    And one big reason never to overuse it: you’ll ruin your response rate. See more here.

  • What to test to raise your email-fundraising open rates

    Talk about email fundraising, and before long, you’re talking about testing subject lines. They’re important for your open rate, of course.

    But the From line can make a big difference too. See my guest post at Future Fundraising now for more.

    When you get an email, probably the first thing you do is to see who it’s from. If it’s somebody important to you, then you’ll open it regardless of what the subject line is.

    The From line that many charities use is the organization name, but you can test:

    • The president’s name.
    • Variations on the president’s name.
    • The name of a celebrity endorser.|
    • The name of an expert on staff.
    • Linking the From line with the appeal topic.

    See more in my guest post at Future Fundraising Now.

  • What political speeches can teach us about fundraising

    When they’re speechifying, politicians want their audiences to respond, and they love it when a line in a speech sets off thunderous applause. But they don’t leave this to chance. They use specific techniques to get a response, and getting people to respond is exactly what we want to do as fundraisers. See my guest post over at Future Fundraising Now for more on using these seven techniques in your fundraising:

    1. The contrast: contrast positive vs. negative.
    2. The list: Place (usually) three items in a series.
    3. The puzzle: Describe the problem, then the solution.
    4. The headline – punchline: Say you’re going to say something, then say it.
    5. The combination: Combine the previous techniques.
    6. The position: Establish a position, then take or refute it.
    7. The pursuit: Encourage response by reiterating.

     

  • How to use social proof in fundraising appeals

    Social proof is a powerful motivator in fundraising appeals. My article in Nonprofit Pro describes how to use it, and shares some ideas on making it work even harder for you.

    To leverage social proof, you can:

    1. Highlight a dollar amount in the gift string. This is often effective. But there’s an even better way to make this work.
    2. Use localization: add the name of the donor’s city to your appeal. But there’s a way to make this even more compelling for donors.
    3. Use testimonials from donors. But you can take this a step further, so that it works even better.
    4. Change the way you present donor benefits. Here’s how to slightly recast the impression that your fundraising copy is giving to bring more donors in.
    5. And whatever you do, be careful to avoid using negative social proof. See what it is and why it’s an easy trap to fall into.

    Check out the whole article here.

  • One big reason to ramp up your major donor marketing

    Now’s the time to do more than ever to engage major donors, and here’s why.

    The U.S. economy is minting new millionaires at a stunning pace. According to one study, the number of millionaire households shot up from 13.7 million to 16.3 million in just one year, from 2012 to 2013.

    And yet, according to other research, the rich and super-rich have cut back on their giving. From 2006 to 2012 — encompassing the Great Recession and recovery — wealthy donors reduced their share of income going to charity.

    So, right now, the rich are a vastly under-tapped source of funding.

    But here’s the interesting part.

    During that same period, the poor increased their giving. They gave a larger share of their income.

    Yes, the poor gave more, and the rich gave less. And it’s is even more surprising since most poor and middle class folks were hammered by the recession.

    The rich, on the other hand, actually did better during that time. What’s more, the number of people entering the privileged classes continues to increase as the income gap widens.

    Which means, of course, that your major-donor prospects keep getting wealthier and the pool of these donors keeps getting bigger. It’s not hard to see that you probably need to pay a lot more attention to high-dollar donors.

    One stumbling block is that the rich and poor give to difference causes. The poor give to churches and soup kitchens, but millionaires tend to give to the arts and universities.

    But even if your nonprofit isn’t in one of those sectors, you can and should engage wealthy donors. And why not? Why shouldn’t your cause get some of this funding? At first, try something simple like versioning a mail appeal for bigger donors, and then move on to campaigns, including mail, email, events, and personal-contact touch points. Have your nonprofit put on its best suit, shine its shoes, comb its hair, and get in front of these donors. Make your case. The upside potential is huge.

     

  • Is this the easiest, most direct way to motivate donors to give?

    It’s no secret that giving confers all kinds of benefits to donors. People who give are generally happier and even healthier than non-givers.

    But if that’s true, then how would donors react if we pointed out those benefits in an appeal? Will speaking directly to donors’ self-interest about the benefits of giving persuade them to give or maybe to give more?

    There’s not a lot of research to go on. But one study suggests that laying out the benefits of giving just might work.

    As a first step, researches explored whether a virtuous cycle exists between happiness and giving — that is, does giving cause the happiness that encourages donors to give?

    The subjects were asked to recall a time when they spent money on themselves or others, and report their happiness. Then each subject was offered the choice in future spending that would make them the happiest. Turns out, the people who felt happy by recalling a previous expenditure for someone else were more likely to donate in the future. So, the virtuous cycle does seem to exist.

    Next, researchers explored whether laying out the benefits of giving would motivate people to give. Researchers surveyed 1,000 readers of the New York Times who had read an article about the link between giving and happiness. Compared to other studies, the people in this group reported devoting as much as 40% of their spending on others — a higher than average rate — suggesting that these people gave more because they were aware of the benefits of giving.

    Yet, other research suggests that adding in motivators like happiness from giving will divert donors’ attention from the need and lessen their impulse to give.

    Still, promoting the benefits of giving is worth testing to see how your donors will react. If you’re bold, come right out and link greater happiness with a gift to your nonprofit. If you’re cautious, use subtle suggestions. And see whether or how much this added dimension moves your donors.

     

  • 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.