Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: behavior

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • New Year’s Fundraising Resolution: Reconnect with lapsed donors

    One way to start 2020 off right is to reactivate lapsed donors. They’re not a lost cause. But you have to be strategic about winning them back.

    First, realize that they’re not sitting around thinking, “Wow, I haven’t given to Save the Gooney Bird League in a while. I should do that.” You have to keep in touch.

    But don’t just keep them in your regular mail stream, and don’t mail them your newsletters. That’s too expensive.

    Second, not all lapsed donors are worth reactivating. Not much point in going after a donor who gave $5 a year and a half ago. The lifetime value isn’t there. Sometimes you just have to let them go and focus on the higher-dollar supporters with a higher lifetime value.

    Once you’ve determined which lapsed donors to contact, one approach is simply to version a successful appeal with wording like “We miss you” and “We need you back.”

    If that seems to work, another approach is to go even further with the lapsed language. Make a big deal about how much their last gift did, and make an even bigger deal about what their returning gift will do. Go overboard talking about how much you want them back.

    Yet another way to go is to try a different format altogether. Maybe a handwritten card with a personal-sounding note about losing touch and how much their support is needed. Including the amount of their last gift can help, too.

    Problem is, though, that many donors who haven’t given in the past 12 months might not think of themselves as lapsed. And all your “we miss you” talk might rub them the wrong way. Maybe they just haven’t gotten around to giving but still thinking of themselves as supporters. Imagine their surprise when you accuse them of cutting things off.

    The reality is that you can’t know why donors have lapsed. Maybe they’ve moved on to other causes. Maybe they didn’t feel their gift did any good. Maybe their situation changed and they’re not donating anymore. Maybe they were acquired with a freeium or a premium and are waiting for another free gift to give again.

    So, yes, it’s a bit of a guessing game. But considering the cost of acquisition, it’s almost always  a good idea to try to reclaim lapsed donors. The subsequent support will likely make it worthwhile. They’ve given before, so they’re more likely to give again. If they’re asked the right way.

  • 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.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • This can torpedo a fundraising appeal

    There’s a structure that’s often used for fundraising appeals even though it’s not really all that good for getting donors to give. This post at the Better Fundraising Company blog shows us what this structure is, and it goes something like this:

    1. Thank you, Mrs. Donor, for your support in the past.
    2. Martha and her daughter, Vicki, have a safe place to live now because of your gifts.
    3. Please give so we can help someone else like them.

    You see this structure again and again in appeals, even though results say it’s often not the best way to go.

    The problem is that this structure fails to present a specific problem and a specific solution that the donor can latch onto. Because of that, it removes one of the most important reasons that donors give – the ability to make a real difference. In the case of Martha and Vicki, the problem has been solved. They’re not homeless anymore. So instead of telling the donor about a person who does need help, this appeal talks about the two people who don’t need help anymore.

    What causes fundraisers to take this approach? It’s most likely the fear of asking. It can be hard to ask people for money. And because some fundraisers are uncomfortable about asking for money, they think that donors are uncomfortable being asked.

    Even experienced fundraisers fall into this trap. As a result, they try to cushion the blow of asking for money by reinforcing the donor’s past gifts and telling a story that’s all good news.

    Usually in these kinds of appeals, the copy goes on and on about how Martha and Vicki are doing so well at the homeless shelter because of the donor’s past support. And often there’s no mention of the struggles that brought Martha and Vicki to the homeless shelter in the first place – only the fact that mother and daughter are living transformed lives. And often in these kinds of appeals, there are few asks. In fact, it’s not unusual to see only one ask, often at the very end of the appeal. As if the charity were hesitant to ask at all.

    Why do this?

    The fact is, donors expect to be asked to give. They want to give. That’s why they opened the letter or email in the first place. They knew they were getting into a fundraising appeal, not a letter from their long-lost sister Matilda.

    What they want and what they will respond to in an appeal is a problem to solve and a compelling way to solve it. Because then they can feel like they’re doing a good deed, instead of simply reinforcing a good deed that’s already been accomplished.

  • 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.

     

     

  • What is it about direct mail for fundraising?

    Mail is still the most productive channel for fundraising. More than email, internet, phone, social media, or any other medium you can dream up.

    Why? Jerry Huntsinger in his Eighty-Six Tutorials on Creating Fundraising Letters and Packages explains it perfectly:

    “… mail-opening in most households is a time of great anticipation, and in many households it represents the high point of the day.

    “We are dealing here with a basic conditioned response mechanism because, in the past, mail has brought tremendous, exciting news, and this has happened so often in the life of an individual that each day they have hope that once again something exciting will be left in their mailboxes.

    “Have you ever watched a person opening their mail and seen them hold a letter up to the light, especially if it is a check? Have you ever done this yourself? It’s really a little ridiculous not to just go ahead and rip the envelope open and see what’s inside.

    “But remember this is a moment of magic; and as you hold that envelope up to the light, you try to imagine what’s inside. It’s as if you were prolonging the anticipation, and you really don’t want that moment of magic to come to an end.”

    Mail is the only medium that holds this kind of spell over us, and it’s just as Jerry says: It’s a conditioned response, and it’s ingrained.

    Nobody goes to their email inbox and hovers over a subject line in anticipation of what might be in store. Usually, you’re just checking which emails you can delete amid the flood of spam.

    Nobody goes onto Facebook with a sense of great anticipation. Mostly, you check social media out of habit as a way to pass the time.

    Nobody is struck with wonder when the phone rings. Usually, it’s an inconvenience, especially when it turns out to be a telemarketing call.

    Mail is different. It’s personal. It’s timely. It’s even cultural in its significance in our lives, and that’s especially true for the Baby Boomers who make up a large portion of donors for most nonprofits. For many, opening the mail is one of the high points of the day.

    This is why it’s never okay to disappoint donors. Mail appeals need to be interesting, shocking, surprising, even exciting. It’s what donors expect, what they look forward to, and certainly what they deserve.

  • 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.

  • 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.