Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Category: Uncategorized

  • Why you DON’T want your donors to be readers of your fundraising appeals

    You see it in a lot of fundraising appeals. The first few sentences of the letter force the donor into the position of being a passive reader as opposed to being a participant.

    The appeal might open with a discussion of a topic. It might present the donor with facts, figures, and opinions. It might cite statistics. The donor is a reader, going through what sounds very much like a corporate memo, instead of a personal letter.

    So what’s the right approach when you want your donors to be participants instead of just passive readers? Of course there are many different approaches. But in most cases, an involving letter opening will have “you” and “I” references. It will bring the donor into the action. And it will try to be emotionally engaging.

    A letter lead like this makes the donor a reader:

    “Food is a basic human right. Yet every year, 45 million children under the age of 5 suffer from malnutrition, and more than 3 million die from hunger-related causes…”

    A letter like this makes the donor more of a participant:

    “You might not see it. It doesn’t always make the news. But I can tell you, it’s heartbreaking. Innocent children, frail from malnutrition, starving to death. It’s a crisis, a tsunami of suffering, all around the world. I think about my own children…”

    A strong, involving opening is like a promise to donors that whatever follows will be just as interesting. And when that happens, you’re far more likely to be on the way to winning their support as well as their loyalty.  

    You’re in fundraising and development. What do you think? Are your appeals working the way you want right now? Comment, or get in touch to compare notes.

  • 8 questions to ask to get inside your donor’s head

    The better you know your donor, the better your appeal is going to be. That’s obvious. The problem is your donor is probably coming from a completely different experiential background. How do you get inside that person’s head?

    Luckily, the answer comes by way of a book on screenwriting: The Protagonist’s Journey by Scott Myers. In his book, he lays out eight questions that a screenwriter needs to ask in order to understand the protagonist of the story and get into the protagonist’s head.

    Here, those questions are adapted for direct response fundraising. I go into each of these questions in detail in my article in Nonprofit Pro. See it here: 8 Questions to Ask to Get Inside Your Donor’s Head (nonprofitpro.com).

    But here’s the 50,000-foot view.

    1. Who Is the Donor?

    To create an effective appeal, you can’t think of your donors as a mass of people. You have to think of one person.

    2. What Does the Donor Want?

    Your donor gives for her own reasons, not because your charity needs funds. So your appeal has to align with what your donor wants.

    3. What Does the Donor Need?

    What your donor needs and what your donor wants aren’t necessarily the same thing.

    4. What Is the Eventual Resolution of the Donor’s Want and Need?

    The eventual resolution isn’t necessarily giving a donation, although that’s certainly part of it. 

    5. What Is at Stake for the Donor?

    Your donor sees that there are things at stake, both for her and for the people around her.

    6. Who or What Opposes the Donor From Getting What She Wants and Needs?

    Maybe she discovered a new charity that has her attention. Maybe she just doesn’t feel like giving right now.

    7. What Does the Donor Fear the Most?

    Sometimes what your donor fears the most is only partially related to your cause.

    8. Why Does This Donor Need to Give at This Time?

    There are lots of reasons your donor would decide to give to your nonprofit. It’s important to pick the best one. 

    This is just a summary. To get the whole story, take a look at my full article on Nonprofit Pro at 8 Questions to Ask to Get Inside Your Donor’s Head (nonprofitpro.com).

  • How to begin a fundraising appeal

    What should come first in a fundraising appeal? It’s an important question. Maybe even the most important question. Because if you fail to capture your donor’s attention at the start, there’s not much chance she’s going read the rest of your letter or email.

    So those first couple of lines had better be good. Which is why this example is so puzzling. It starts like this:

    Dear Friend,

    Tonight, millions of children in this country and around the world will go to bed with empty stomachs and troubled minds because they did not get enough to eat today.

    But their hunger is not inevitable. It is a choice. Not their choice. Ours.

    We make that choice every time we allow our nation’s leaders to decide there’s enough money to increase spending on national defense and cut taxes for corporations … but not enough for programs that reduce hunger and give children the nutrition they need to grow up healthy and reach their full potential.

    As the world struggles to contain the coronavirus, those who were already hungry are suffering even more. Even before the pandemic, 1 in 3 children under age 5 suffered from malnutrition. Now, as hunger is surging around the world, even more children will die because of acute malnutrition.

    Okay, that’s the setup. Up to this point, the appeal is pretty much a meditation on childhood hunger. Which is important as a topic, of course, except that this copy is certainly not you-focused. It’s not really engaging the donor. It’s describing the problem but not inviting the donor into it. Which, again, is puzzling. Because what comes next is this:

    If your faith moves you to action to help people suffering from hunger, please sign and return the enclosed Citizen Petition.

    It’s not clear why we moved from children going hungry to people going hungry, but leave that aside.

    The question is, Why isn’t this line about the petition at the very beginning of the appeal? If your donor-involvement device is the petition – which it clearly is in this appeal – then there’s no reason to bury it under four paragraphs of text that simply describes the problem but doesn’t give the donor anything to do.

    Instead, lead off with the reference to the petition, and engage the donor in a specific action right from the start. This is one way to do it.

    Dear Friend,

    If your faith moves you to take action to help children who are going hungry, please sign and return the Citizen Petition I’ve enclosed for you.

    Here’s why.

    We let our nation’s leaders decide there’s enough money to spend billions on national defense and cutting corporate taxes … but not enough to help innocent children who aren’t getting enough to eat.

    This has to stop. It’s time for caring people like you to take a stand.

    Because tonight children across our country will go to bed hungry. That little girl saying her prayers before bedtime – she’s going to get under the covers with her stomach growling and her eyes filling up with tears.

    How can she grow up healthy like that? How can she learn in school? How can she be happy?

    She can’t. Unless you help.

    So please, sign the Citizen Petition I’ve enclosed for you, and return it with your gift of $20 … $25 … or even $50.

    Often in appeal letters, the first several paragraphs are used just to warm up to the actual point. That pretty much never works.

    It’s vital to get to the point fast. Then, there’s a much greater likelihood that your donor will absorb the essence of the message.

    Getting to the point also shows donors that your messaging is important and relevant. It shows donors that you respect them and their time. And it shows donors that there’s a specific action they can take to help solve a problem.

    That’s one way to move your donors from an “uh, maybe later” response to the response you want: “I need to give now!”  

  • Tell a better story for fundraising

    Is this the way to make the story in your fundraising appeal more memorable and more impactful?

    Tell it in the present tense.

    Most of the time, stories are in the past tense. This happened, then that happened, then this happened. But there’s research to suggest that stories in the present tense pack a lot of punch and leave an impression on the listener. And that’s because researchers found neural coupling between the storyteller and the listener in a story that’s told in the present tense.

    Granted, this research involved verbal communication, so it may not be directly applicable to written words. But still, it is interesting.

    The researchers wired up the brains of the storyteller and the listener. And when the story was told in the present tense, similar parts of both brains were lighting up. This could mean that the storyteller and the listener are more in sync.

    Partially this could be because a story in the present tense is more likely to be judged by the brain receiving it as an emotionally charged event. Which means that the person hearing the story gets a shot of the brain chemical dopamine. Which makes the whole experience for the listener more impactful and more memorable.

    That’s the theory, anyway, and when you think about it, it does make sense. A story seems more immediate in the present tense. Which means that you’re listener is going to be more, well, present and more likely to stay with you for the whole story and what follows. Like the call to action.

    Naturally, nothing has been conclusively proven in this research. Communication is far too complex for almost anything to be conclusively proven. But it is something that could be worth trying and testing.

  • Coronavirus fundraising – there’s a better way

    Judging from what’s showing up in mailboxes and email inboxes, it looks like a lot of nonprofits are struggling with the messaging around the coronavirus crisis. But honestly, they’re making it much harder than it has to be.

    Take this example from a prominent aid and relief charity. The first paragraph begins with the new president and CEO introducing himself and then acknowledging that he’s stepping into his new role at a challenging time. “We’re all facing the coronavirus pandemic,” he writes. Uh…no kidding.

    So, apparently, this is a new-CEO letter, plus a coronavirus fundraising appeal. Generally, it’s not a great idea to try and do two things with one letter. It’s best when the letter has one purpose and one point.

    The next paragraph talks about how COVID-19 threatens everyone, especially the elderly and people with health conditions. There’s no need to waste time saying this. People have gotten this information thousands of times by now.

    In the third paragraph, the letter writer explains that he’s often asked if it’s difficult to be a CEO at this challenging time, and then assures us that the organization adapts to challenging times because of their strong teams. This comes off as way too self-serving, but beside that, it’s not good fundraising, because it’s about the organization not the donor.

    The next paragraph congratulates the front line health workers for their commitment and the organization’s supporters for their commitment. This is an okay sentiment, of course, but it shouldn’t be here, four paragraphs in, before we’ve even come to an ask.

    Paragraph five explains that all hands are needed on deck in this crisis, and asks, “Can you help us?”  Not “Can you help shut down the coronavirus?” But “Can you help US?” This is organization centric, not donor centric.

    It’s not until the sixth paragraph that we get to the real point of the letter: a donation to provide personal protective equipment for health workers. Before we get to that, though, the letter explains that the organization has already shipped tons of PPE for health workers.

    Hang on a minute – so the organization has already shipped tons of PPE and now they’re asking for a donation to ship PPE? That’s a strange way to present an ask. Why would you tell a donor, right before the ask, that you’ve already done the very same thing you’re asking the donor to do? Sort of takes the edge off of the urgency, doesn’t it?

    There’s a far better way to structure this appeal, and it starts with the opening. Begin with the real and urgent need for PPE. This is something, given the wall-to-wall news coverage, that every donor will immediately get. Then show the donor how her gift fulfills that need, ideally with a specific and compelling offer. Something like: “Your gift of $XX sends XX pairs of gloves. Your gift of $XX sends XX masks.” And so on.

    It’s one of the basic best practices of disaster fundraising. In many disasters, the news coverage provides the background, which means that donors mainly need to know how they can help and what their help will do. If it takes five or six paragraphs of blab to get to this point, most donors will be long gone.

    There’s a basic framework for structuring disaster-fundraising appeals, and it doesn’t include talk about the commitment of your staff, your organization’s history, your organization’s flexibility, generalities about how much of a threat coronavirus is, and similar things. They’re just not relevant. They take the donor’s eye off the ball.

    What disaster fundraising does require is a compelling expression of the need, a clear case for the urgency of the donor’s gift, and a strong offer that details what the donor’s gift will do. All focused around one core idea. Because when the appeal has one purpose and one point, there’s a far greater chance that it’s going to break through, connect with donors, and raise more money.

  • How NOT to begin a fundraising appeal – and one way that almost always works

    A fundraising appeal from a social services nonprofit opens with this:

    “What would we do without you? How would we help local families like Michelle’s?”

    That’s the opening paragraph, the first thing that donors will see, and for some, the only thing they’ll see. Because if the opening isn’t right, then most donors won’t go any further. And that generally means no donation.

    What would WE do without you? How would WE help local families… That’s how this comes off to most donors. We, We, We. We’re the ones doing all the work, and all you do is give a few bucks every once in a while.

    This opening manages to create the appearance of donor centricity without really being donor centric at all. It seems at first like it’s empowering the donor but then it stops short. It takes aim at the target audience – the donor – then goes just wide of the target.

    Maybe the thinking behind this approach as an opening gambit is that it’s we, the organization, in partnership with you, the donor, working hand in hand to do good in the world. If that’s the case, a better approach might be something like this: “You and I are putting our hearts into this – together – to help local families like Michelle’s.” This way it’s more clear that donor and the person signing the letter are on equal footing in this arrangement.

    But still, there’s another approach to opening a fundraising appeal that brings fewer problems with it and almost always sets the appeal on the right track. And it has the added advantage of being simple and direct.

    It’s this: “I’m writing to you because …”  Most people in general and most donors in particular would appreciate receiving clear communication like this.

    No BS, no warming up to the subject, no initial throat clearing, no hollow flattery about how “we” couldn’t do anything without the particular donor reading the letter. Instead, just getting straight to the point about the need. As far as openings go, it’s about as tried and true as they come.

  • How to test smart for fundraising

    The problem with the typical A/B test for a direct mail fundraising appeal or an email appeal is that it’s just too careful and conservative. That’s the point in this post from Seth’s blog. He says that we tend to test things that are too similar because, basically, we’re afraid to fail.

    It’s true. When the question of testing comes up in a creative meeting for a fundraising appeal, lots of times the discussion will revolve around testing a closed face envelop versus a window envelope, or an appeal letter with a photo versus without the photo, or a handwritten margin note versus without the margin note, or an email appeal with a Give Now button versus a Donate Now button.

    Tests like these are all but guaranteed to produce either a tie or a very, very slight win. In either case, we don’t learn much about the creative or the donors – which was the whole point of testing in the first place.

    Does this mean you should always test some crazy new thing and swing for the fences? Not necessarily. Say you have a blockbuster control that’s blown everything else out of the water. Then it would probably make sense to test some minor things to generate incremental gains, provided you want to keep the control going instead of beating it.

    Or say you want to see if you can reduce costs without hurting revenue. Then it would probably make sense to test the appeal, for example, with and without the insert. You may find it does just as well without the extra piece, which means cost goes down a little so overall revenue goes up a little.

    But in a lot of cases, it’s more instructive to test, as Seth says, “radically different alternatives.” More panic-inducing too. But also more instructive.

     

     

  • 3 must-haves for a strong January renewal appeal

    Now that your year end appeal is out the door, it’s time to relax with a few weeks off. HA! Kidding! Actually, it’s time for your January renewal appeal to be in the works.

    Your January renewal can be one of the strongest appeals of the year. Those donors who didn’t give to your year-end appeal will probably be ready to open their wallets in January.

    In addition, after the hustle and bustle of the holidays, donors have a bit more time on their hands, so they’ll probably be more receptive to your ask. And, donors often work out their plans for giving in January, and they may be thinking they’ll start off the year with a big, fat, generous gift. You’ll want to be there for that.

    So, here are three things to do so that your renewal generates good results:

    1. Use a membership card. Does anybody actually take the membership card from the mailing and put it in their wallet? Probably not. But that’s okay. The membership card is a symbolic thing, obviously. Something tangible. And especially when it has the donor’s name on it, it works. Probably for the same reason that those donor-personalized Certificates of Appreciation work.
    2. Give solid reasons to renew. The call to action is, “Renew your support,” and that should be peppered throughout the appeal. Because of that, it’s important to provide some strong reasons why your donors would want to renew their support. These reasons will be based around the impact of your donors’ gifts. For a cancer center, say, it could be something like, “Your gift will fuel the world-class research that’s saving lives.” Three or four strong reasons are what you need to drive home the urgency and the impact around donating.
    3. Acknowledge your donor’s importance. The opening of your letter is probably a good place to make this point, and you’ll want to be somewhat effusive in thanking your donor. Still, you don’t want to dwell on this for paragraph after paragraph. Tell your donors how wonderful and important they sincerely are, and then move on to donor impact.

    It’ll be a whole new year soon, with new challenges and new opportunities for your donors to be involved with your mission. Your January renewal is how you can give them that chance.

  • Year-end fundraising: easy way to get the messaging right

    It’s true – now’s the time to start thinking about year-end fundraising. The end of the year is a crucial time for nonprofits, because most of the gifts that nonprofits receive come in during December. We’ve all seen that stats about how important year end is.

    So, sure, you want to do a year end appeal. That’s a given. But what do you say to donors to get them to respond?

    Luckily, the messaging for this appeal is pretty simple and straightforward. Basically, you want to emphasize:

    1. The urgency of the December 31 deadline.
    2. Tax deductibility. Even though most donors don’t itemize, tax deductibility is still a potential donor benefit, and should be part of your year-end appeal. You can even say on the reply form: Any gift that is postmarked before midnight on December 31 could be fully deductible on your taxes.
    3. Sustain the nonprofit’s programs and services.
    4. Help the nonprofit end the year strong.
    5. Help the nonprofit begin the New Year in a better position to pursue its mission.
    6. Do one more act of compassion before the year comes to a close.

    The year-end appeal is essentially these message points.

    You can include a story about someone who was helped, accomplishments that the donor helped make possible, or other donor-focused elements if you’d like, but often this isn’t necessary.

    In most cases, keeping the appeal simple and direct, focusing on the deadline, is the most effective copy platform.

     

     

  • Is The Agitator wrong about the too-much-mail donor complaint?

    The too-much-mail donor complaint (and how to handle it by mailing less) shows up in an interesting post in The Agitator. And it prompts a question: Is it a good idea to let donor complaints drive strategy when we may not fully understand the nature of the complaint?

    First, consider a corollary. If you’d ask consumers if they receive too many advertising messages, they’d say absolutely yes. Now imagine a marketing consultant approaching Starbucks and saying, “Your customers are complaining about all those ads, but you can advertise less and still increase sales.” Now imagine Starbucks actually going for that and launching a campaign that tells its customers in their advertising, “We’re going to advertise less to you but we still expect you to buy as much or more, okay?” Even if that could work in the short term, what happens when the novelty of it quickly wears off and customer loyalty wanes? Could such a strategy be sustainable for a business or a nonprofit?

    Maybe when donors say they’re getting too much mail, we’re mistakenly taking their complaint literally. Maybe they don’t mean the actual number of pieces of mail. Maybe what donors are really saying is that they’re getting too much mail that’s irrelevant to them, doesn’t convey realistic donor benefits, doesn’t convey a real impact, and doesn’t back up any of the promises with credible proof. You know, junk mail.