Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: copywriting

  • Why we get mediocre fundraising

    The appeal opened with a description of a sweet little baby, and proceeded to deliver this bombshell:

    “Then he’s dead. Dead in 24 hours. Lying open mouthed to the night air, with his mom and dad weeping.”

    Strong language for an appeal? Yes. Concrete and graphic? Yes. Taking aim at donors’ emotions? Yes. Gratuitous guilt-tripping? Not at all. Not even close.

    In this case, the appeal was about the tragedy of babies dying in poor countries. So it made perfect sense to dramatize that problem as vividly as possible.

    Then, the initial comments came in.

    “Too over the top,” they said. “Too shocking.” So it was watered down. But why?

    For a lot of reasons, but mostly fear. People are reluctant to rock the boat or disagree. And in truth, many clients are reluctant to risk donor complaints.

    It’s understandable, of course. But then again, anything that’s even slightly outside the boundaries of the accepted gets nixed, and what’s left is the lukewarm, the middle of the road, the mediocre.

    If writing copy for fundraising is about anything at all it’s passion for the cause. We can’t have that and, at the same time, let fear hold us back from connecting with donors at a visceral level. Which is what we absolutely, without question, must do.

    So, we have to push forward. Test the boundaries. Take a risk. Go out on a limb. Try something bold, even if it doesn’t work.

    It’s the only thing to do, because there’s only one other alternative, and that way lies mediocrity.

  • Herschell Gordon Lewis’ Lessons for Fundraising

    Herschell Gordon Lewis passed away recently. He was known as the “Godfather of Gore” for his campy movies.

    But more importantly, he will always be remembered a master of direct-response copywriting, both for business and for nonprofits. See my guest post at Future Fundraising Now.

    Among his many lessons for fundraisers, there are three that stand out:

    • It’s about “you,” the donor – not about “us,” the organization.
    • Use the motivators – fear, exclusivity, greed, guilt, and need for approval.
    • The best fundraising is episodic – it presents anecdotes, narratives, and events to donors.

    This barely scratches the surface of Lewis’ wisdom on fundraising.

    If you’re a student of copywriting and fundraising, then you should count Lewis, along with legends like John Caples, as one of your teachers. See the guest post here.

  • “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.

  • Are you a good fundraiser? Try this simple self-check.

    Your appeals get your donors involved and engaged in your nonprofit and mission, right?

    If you’re ready to find out, try this self-check.

    Call one of your donors out of the blue. You’ll be shocked. Because, odds are, your donor:

    • Doesn’t know what your nonprofit does beyond something hazy like helping people or fighting poverty. And doesn’t really care to know much more.
    • Doesn’t care what your mission statement says. Hasn’t read it, doesn’t plan to.
    • Doesn’t know what your programs are or any successes that you’ve had.
    • Doesn’t know she’s in your sustainer program and doesn’t know you have a sustainer program or even what that is. She only knows that she gives $10 a month when the reminder comes.
    • Doesn’t really want your appeals and newsletters. She usually just glances at that stuff and tosses it.
    • Doesn’t know that the appeal she just responded to featured a matching grant. Didn’t look at it that closely.

    Sure, we all realize that what donors say is usually different from how they respond. So just because one donor doesn’t know or care much about your nonprofit but still gives, that’s okay, right?

    Maybe. But what if large blocks of your donors feel this way? What if they’re giving out of habit or some philanthropic reflex and not because they love your nonprofit and value what you do? That’s scary. Because if they’re not loving you, they’re leaving you. Attrition will steamroller you.

    So what do you do? You do more. More donor engagement, more donor focus, more donor communication.

    Don’t release an appeal until it sings. Don’t send a newsletter until you can’t believe how good the stories are — with a protagonist, conflict, a plot, and a point. Don’t fear ‘bothering’ your donors. The more they hear from you, the more they’ll like it. Don’t just go through the motions with social media. Provide content that’s good enough to share. Don’t just have a website. Give donors videos, images, stories, infographics, and more.

    But mainly, don’t just communicate with donors. Hit the hot buttons of their values, motivations, and aspirations. Animate those feelings, and you’ll get right to the core of what drives your donors’ giving as well as their loyalty.