Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: advertising

  • 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.

  • Coronavirus fundraising and what not to do

    Fundraising for the coronavirus emergency is, well, unusual so far.

    A soup kitchen sends an email with the subject line “A message from the president.” If you’re a donor scanning your email inbox, that could be just about anything.

    Then when you open it, there’s still no indication. The headline says “A message from the president.” So you read the first line: “I want to keep you informed about our response to the growing coronavirus threat and the impact it’s having across the country.”

    The following paragraphs talk about how the organization’s main priority is health and safety, working with local officials, taking the coronavirus threat seriously, taking necessary precautions, following CDC guidelines, and so on. The email goes on like this for five long paragraphs.

    Only at the very end does it mention that costs for extra cleaning supplies and other measures have caused a budget shortfall. And only at the very end is there an ask for support.

    In a similar vein, an email from an international aid and relief charity opens with an announcement that the WHO has officially declared the coronavirus to be a global pandemic. It goes on to talk about how the organization is taking steps to protect its staff and clients, how it has launched preparedness efforts, and how they’re dedicated to protecting the most vulnerable. There’s a link to a webpage that lays out the organization’s plan. There’s no ask in this email. It’s all informational.

    Question is, Why is this emergency being treated differently from any other emergency that people and nonprofits would deal with … any other tornado, hurricane, flood, fire? Why the form-letter, corporate-sounding pronouncements from on high?

    There’s no need for a charity to issue a formal public statement about the coronavirus. Donors know all about it. The news coverage has been wall-to-wall for weeks now.

    The best practices for disaster fundraising are pretty well established. They could and should be put to use in this disaster too.

    The email from the soup kitchen could open with a subject line and a headline that talk about helping to protect people from coronavirus.

    It could go on to talk about how the homeless people, volunteers, and staff are facing serious risks, and how need for cleaning supplies, disinfectant, cleaning crews, and more is incredibly urgent.

    Then it could have a specific and direct ask to fund the supplies and other actions needed.

    That would be along the lines of a typical disaster fundraising appeal. Lots of charities will need additional funding in this coronavirus emergency just as aid and relief organizations need additional funding after a hurricane, and there are specific best practices for disaster fundraising that show how to secure that funding. We should use them.

     

  • Are your fundraising appeals repetitive? Good

    Effective copywriting for fundraising is weird. It has a lot of characteristics that seem to be the opposite of what’s right. One of these is repetition.

    Good copy for an appeal tends to repeat some things over and over. To the uninitiated, this seems wrong.

    In our English composition classes in school, we’re taught to make a point and then move on, continuing to make successive points until the conclusion. That’s basic expository writing – which is nothing like copy for an appeal.

    That’s because most donors probably won’t read an appeal letter from beginning to end. They tend to skip around. So we repeat key things in order to catch the reader’s attention at various points in the appeal. But there’s another reason to use repetition, and it’s based on science.

    In this study, the researchers wanted to test the assumptions people make about what they read and hear. So, they designed a test in which subjects were given sets of statements to review. Some of the statements were true, some were false, and some were repeated. The statements were generally expressions of fact (or what appeared to be fact), like “Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office.”

    The upshot is that the repeated statements were more likely to be judged as true, compared with similar statements that were not repeated. So, if you saw the statement, “Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office” again and again, you’d tend to think it was true, even without looking it up. (It’s not true, by the way. William Henry Harrison was the first.)

    Think about what this means for fundraising copy. First, though, a caveat: of course we wouldn’t repeat a false statement in order to make it seem true to donors. That would be unethical.

    But if we want to enhance the believability of a true statement, then repetition is one way to do it – and a very effective way. It could be a statement like, “Your gift will transform lives.” Naturally we’d want donors to believe that true statement.

    Or maybe it’s a statement that’s true but strains credulity a bit, like, “Your gift will multiply 1,000 times in impact.” In order for an offer like that to be effective, it would have to be believable for donors. Repetition would be one way to accomplish that.

    There are lots of ways to use repetition in appeals. And it’s good to. Repetition is there for a reason. Its use in appeals is purposeful and strategic. Don’t avoid it. Embrace it for better results.

  • Are you shouting at your donors without realizing it?

    Yes, most donors are Baby Boomers. They’re in their 60s or later. And they don’t like to be shouted at.

    Are you doing that in your mail appeals? You might be if you’ve bought into the idea that the bigger the font, the better. You might think you’re being helpful to your Baby Boomer donors because of what you assume to be their poor eyesight. But they might not take it that way.

    If your appeal letters look like a page out of a large-print book, consider the words of Claude Hopkins, the father of modern advertising. He said: “Some advocate large type and big headlines. Yet they do not admire salesmen who talk in loud voices.”

    You see appeal letters that do look like a page out of a large-print book, with fonts that look to be 14 point or even larger. It’s the typographical equivalent of an obnoxious, back-slapping salesman – or fundraiser – who’s loud, booming voice bounces off the walls.

    That’s not necessary. And it’s not effective. You don’t want to be that fundraiser. Huge type is annoying.

    Hopkins goes on to explain: “People read all they care to read in 8-point type. Our magazines and newspapers are printed in that type. Folks are accustomed to it. Anything louder is like loud conversation.”

    8-point type? Not so sure about that, but lots of newspapers and magazines today are printed in 10-point type. That’s about the average. And “folks” would be used to that. So there’s no real reason to go crazy big in the font for appeals.

    On the other hand, don’t go to the other extreme, either. You don’t want the font to be so small that it’s like you’re whispering. That’s also annoying.

    So, do what any good face-to-face salesperson or fundraiser would do. Talk in a normal voice.

    A normal voice, for most appeals, would be something like 12 point Times New Roman. There are lots of other similar fonts, but Times is a good bet. It’s a serif font. That’s important. A serif font is way more readable than sans serif.

    And no matter which font you use, don’t put it over graphics. Don’t put it over a color. And don’t use a reverse (with the type in white on a color background). And even though your graphic designer will want to do all those things because it seems trendy, they all hamper readability.

    And readability is key. So in most cases, that means a font that’s not too big and not too small, that’s in black on a white background, and that doesn’t have to compete with a lot of extraneous graphics. For most donors, this simple approach – based on centuries of typographical history – says “read me.” And in fundraising, that translates to “donate now.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Get fundraising emails opened

    With all the articles and blog posts on email fundraising, it’s easy to get the impression that the subject line reigns supreme in the ongoing battle to get fundraising emails opened.

    It’s not that the subject line doesn’t matter – it does. It’s crucial. But it’s not the only thing. And it’s probably not even the most important thing.

    An email appeared in my inbox a few days ago from Pauline Hersher. Immediately I wondered: Who in the world is Pauline Hersher? Do I know a Pauline Hersher? Should I know who Pauline Hersher is? Why am I getting this? Wait – it’s probably spam or some kind of phishing email. I better not open it.

    Admit it: you’ve gone through something like this yourself. And it’s because the first thing you look at when you get an email probably isn’t the subject line – it’s the from line. You want to see who it’s from before you open it.

    It’s the same for your donors. They’re wary about opening emails from an unknown source and downloading some mega-virus that turns their laptop into a puff of white smoke.

    After puzzling over the identity of Ms. Hersher (not the real name, by the way), I finally noticed the subject line and realized the email was from a foundation I support.

    Why add all this noise into a fundraising email? It just makes emails less likely to get opened.

    Instead, take some of the attention usually lavished on subject lines and turn it to the from line. You can test different from lines to see what will work best. In general, try to keep the from line on the shorter side, since many email programs will just cut off a long from line.

    If you can’t keep the from line short, then try to front-load the information. If your from line is, say, “John Jasperson from Save the Whales Foundation.” Donors won’t see most of that in their email preview. So unless you’re positive that everyone knows who John Jasperson is, try something like “Save the Whales: John Jesperson” for your from line as a possible test. Or maybe simply “Save the Whales.” It’s worthwhile to experiment with a few options and see what works best.

  • When to use a plain envelope in fundraising

    In Gulliver’s Travels, our intrepid explorer finds himself in Lilliput, where two factions of Lilliputians are in dispute. On one side are the Big-Endians, who break their boiled eggs at the big end, while on the other side are the Little-Endians, who break their eggs at the little end.

    This is kind of like that. There’s a group of people in direct mail and fundraising who maintain that the best carrier, bar none, is the humble plain envelope. After all, they insist, getting the carrier open is half the battle, and who can resist the siren song of the plain envelope? Don’t prospects just have to know what’s inside?

    And then there’s another group of people who maintain that teaser copy and images on the outside envelope are the way to entice donors and lure them in.

    So who’s right? Luckily, we have some help, by way of a post on SOFII, from the esteemed Professor Siegfried Vogele, dean of direct mail and one of the field’s most original thinkers.

    The good doctor explains envelope effectiveness in terms of filters and amplifiers. A filter impedes response, and an amplifier, well, amplifies it.

    He further explains that the plain envelope is what we normally associate with personal correspondence (rare these days, thanks to email) or with business mail, like a letter from your insurance company. When you get that letter, open it, and find your expectations confirmed – yes, it IS a letter from Aunt Margie! – then that’s an amplifier for the recipient. In this case, the envelope has done its job by successfully setting the stage.

    But if that plain envelope happens to contain an advertising circular, a sales letter, or a Dear-Friend fundraising appeal that you weren’t anticipating, then that can be a filter, depressing response – probably because, in this case, the envelope did not set the stage for the prospect. You got something completely different from what you’re conditioned to expect from a plain envelope.

    So does this mean we should never use a plain envelope? Or that we should ways use teaser copy and images? As with all things direct mail, it depends.

    If the contents are highly personal and highly targeted to the recipient, then a plain envelope could be the right way to go. That will set the stage for the recipient about what’s to come, and your donor will likely move smoothly from the outside envelope to the appeal inside to have their expectations confirmed.

    But, if the contents are obviously a more mass-market kind of fundraising appeal, then it might be good to think about how to set the stage with teaser copy and images. No easy task. That could mean everything from a simple “R.S.V.P” on the outer envelope to an expression about the cause to the beginning of a story. There’s an infinite number of ways to do this, so picking the so-called right one is going to depend a lot on your list and your offer. Not to mention your ability to read your donors’ minds.

    So, there we have it: the Big-Endians versus the Little-Endians. Which side is right? Well, both are, of course.

     

  • 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.