Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: copywriting

  • 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.

  • Power to the pronoun

    Most of us think of pronouns like “I” and “we” as mere function words in copy. We use them to start a sentence or move it along to get to the good, meaty words that are marbled with meaning.

    But research shows that simple pronouns say a lot more than we think.

    For example, in both speaking and writing, higher-status people don’t use the personal pronoun “I” very much. This contradicts the stereotype of the captain of the boardroom constantly exclaiming “I, I, I” and “Me, me, me.” In fact, higher-status people use “I” far less, while lower-status people use “I” far more.

    This is the case, as the researchers theorized, because the lower-status people are focusing more on themselves. They say “I” more often because they’re more self-conscious and aware of how they’re seeming to the higher-status person.

    On the other hand, leaders and other higher-status people tend to use the plural pronoun “we” much more than their followers. That’s because leaders are more “other-focused.” Their attention isn’t on themselves but on the group, the goal, and the big-picture externalities.

    What does this mean for fundraising? The copy in an appeal can convey a whole range of emotion from outrage to benevolence to fear to hope. Along with that, we’re always aware when writing copy that our appeals are essentially a dialogue between writer and reader. And during that dialogue, the focus shifts from writer to reader and back again, as in any conversation.

    So, based on this research, using “I” in copy can be an effective way to put the donor in a position of higher status, to display more thoughtfulness or self-awareness on the part of the writer, or to show vulnerability, as when reacting to an instance of human suffering, for example. “I slumped in my chair when I learned Miriam had TB.”

    And, “we” can be used to show that the focus is outer-directed, to convey the need for teamwork, or to suggest that the writer is taking charge and demonstrating leadership — “We need to end poverty now!” One caution here. In marketing and fundraising copy, readers might assume that “we” is being used in the organizational sense — that the organization is the “we” that’s talking. It’s important to make it clear from the context that the “we” refers to writer and donor together, marching toward a goal.

    Admittedly, these are subtle points. But as anyone who’s ever sweated over the right verb or poured over test results knows, it’s the subtleties that can add up to big differences in response.

  • This phony best practice for subject lines has to go

    You’re creating an e-appeal, and suddenly you’re staring up at the north face of the 70,000-ft mountain you must climb. You have to write the subject line.

    It has to stand out in the inbox, intrigue your donors, motivate them to act, and move them to click, but despite everything the subject line has to do, most self-appointed experts are unmovable on one thing: it has to be short, short, short.

    “Keep it under three words,” they say. “Under two? Even better!”

    But according to a study in which 12 billion — yes, billion — subject lines were analyzed, there’s no correlation between subject line length and open rates. Short subject line of, say, 12 characters, didn’t command people to click, but then again, longer subject lines of 150 characters didn’t repel people either. Subject-line length just didn’t matter.

    So, how about this — let’s stop creating rules that are irrelevant to actual practice and restricting ourselves and hamstringing our appeals in the process.

    We’re communicating with donors. So depending on a myriad of factors — everything from the offer to the nonprofit itself to donor psychology — there are times when a short subject line like “hey,” from the famous Obama email campaign, will work like gangbusters. And there are times when a long subject line like, “Fight killer diseases with your gift multiplying 50 times,” will get clicks like crazy. There is no empirically researched and optimized length for subject lines.

    And that’s good. We should embrace the ambiguity and enjoy the process of connecting at a human level with donors. Because otherwise, fundraising would be all science and no art. And that would be no fun.

  • 3 social proof techniques that signal donors to give more

    It can be tricky to upgrade donors, but the truth is that most donors would probably give more if they’re asked with social proof.

    According to research, if donor’s think their gifts are lower than those of others, they’ll tend to give more. There’s a conformity effect at work.

    In addition, donors want to feel that they’re giving their fair share. So if they think they might be doing less than that, then social proof can influence their gift amount.

    What’s more, donors assume that a charity asking for and getting larger donations is a higher-quality organization, much like a bigger price tag on a TV says “better.”

    With this donor psychology in mind, how can we build support with social proof? In one study, researchers told donors calling into a public radio station fund drive that the previous donor had just given a gift of a certain amount, and then researchers asked the caller for his or her gift.

    When the amount of the previous gift mentioned was at or above the average gift, donors tended to give more. And when that amount was among the highest donations received, donors tended to give still more. Social proof was at work.

    We can use this learning and adapt it for the copy in our appeals. Here are three easy things to try.

    1. In the body copy, you can include a simple line like, “Many of our supporters are giving $XX3,” right before the ask. Of course the $XX3 amount would be one of the higher amounts in the string relevant to that donor – a gift upgrade. As in the public radio fundraiser, this simple line of copy can provide the social proof that signals what the appropriate gift amount is.
    2. To reinforce this approach, you can add a circle around that same dollar value in the gift string on the response device, with wording like, “many donors give this amount.” This technique alone often increases average gift, but when combined with the line of copy described above, it can be even more effective.
    3. Since social proof tends to work best when the right action to take is unclear, you can try increasing the number of gift handles. Instead of the usual three or four, the gift string can be increased to eight or ten gift handles, presenting donors with a broader array of choices, while of course highlighting the preferred amount .

    These three techniques are subtle and simple ways to incorporate social proof. They’re easy to do and just might produce a bump in average gift. Why not test it in your next appeal?

     

     

  • Trouble cultivating younger donors? This might be why

    For many of us, caring about others just isn’t that important.

    That’s one of the shocking findings of a new study conducted by a researcher at Harvard University. http://sites.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/making-caring-common/files/executive_summary.pdf

    First, let’s take a look at the subject of the study, high-school kids. And then, we’ll look at another part of the research, the kids’ parents — the younger donors that most nonprofits are trying to cultivate.

    The study surveyed 10,000 middle and high school students. When asked what was most important to them — achieving at a high level, happiness, or caring for others – a full 80% said achieving at a high level or happiness, but only about 20% said caring for others.

    Naturally it’s distressing that kids place so little importance on helping others, but what’s probably happening is that the children are taking their cues from parents.

    While parents say it’s important to raise children who are caring, the kids themselves are reading the subtext. About 80% of children said that their parents are more concerned with achievement or happiness than with caring for others. The kids felt the same way about their teachers.

    The children were also three times more likely to agree than disagree with this statement: “My parents are prouder if I get good grades than if I’m a caring community member.”

    The message that adults are sending is loud and clear — put yourself and your success first.

    These parents and teachers are the younger donors that fundraisers are trying to engage and motivate. And while they may say that caring for others is important, it seems, according to this study at least, that they’re more concerned with their own success in life than the welfare of others.

    The takeaway for fundraising? The doing-good-is-its-own-reward theme doesn’t work for younger donors the way it did for previous generations, particularly the World War II generation. And because of that, if we want to reach younger donors, it’s more important than ever in our fundraising appeals and other donor communications to emphasize positive results, superior outcomes, and success stories. Charities have to show that they represent the success and achievement that younger donors are placing so much importance on and striving for themselves. It’s one way for nonprofits to be more relevant to younger donors, connect with them on their terms, and ultimately win their support.

  • How to Use Verbal Images in Fundraising Copy

    When it comes to engaging your donors, you can’t just tell. You have to show. And you do it with verbal images. See my article in Fundraising Success magazine: 7 Ways to Use Verbal Images to Pull Donors into Your Appeal. http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/article/7-ways-use-verbal-images-pull-donors-into-your-fundraising-appeal/1

    A verbal image is a succinct, sharply focused word picture that readers will immediately get. It’s concise, clear, and concrete, letting donors see exactly how their support will make a difference.

    You can use verbal images to:

    1. Present the need.
    2. Convey the leverage in your offer.
    3. Show donor involvement.
    4. Put the donor’s gift into action.
    5. Highlight your donor’s impact.
    6. Convey your nonprofit’s work.
    7. Show donors how and why to give.

    Take a look at the entire article at http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/article/7-ways-use-verbal-images-pull-donors-into-your-fundraising-appeal/1.

  • Afraid of missing out? You’re not alone

    Social proof is a powerful motivator in fundraising. We might, for example, localize an appeal with the donor’s city name to imply that others in the neighborhood are giving, or we might add “Many donors give this amount” on a reply device. This is standard wisdom-of-the-crowd social proof.

    But there’s another form of social proof that we can evoke, and that’s the fear of missing out.

    This fear is hardwired into us. Nobody wants to be the odd man out if everyone else seems to be doing something or if everyone else is snapping up some new gadget. It’s a natural feeling. The reaction is natural too — “I want to do what everybody else is doing.” Social proof.

    So here are three possible ways to evoke the fear of missing out in fundraising.

    Use deadlines. Fear of missing out makes the deadline a natural motivator. It’s one reason that year-end appeals tend to do well. The December 31 deadline is built right in. But if you look, you’ll probably find deadlines for many of your appeals, simply because most projects have a defined beginning and end. If not, try to create a deadline that’s believable, and — this is important — explain why the deadline exists.

    Funny thing about deadlines, though. People tend to put off taking action until the last minute when they’re faced with a deadline. So don’t allow too much time for a response. You might even consider including an inducement for early action.

    Demonstrate scarcity. “Supplies are limited.” It’s classic “fear of missing out.” In fundraising, the supply could be the money in a matching grant. When it’s used up, the matching grant is over. The supply could be a quantity of medicine that’s available to be shipped to poor countries. Donors need to give now in order to have their gift cover the cost of shipping. The supply could be the number of backpacks with school supplies that a charity has on hand to give to children. Donors have give now before the opportunity runs out. Look for ways to make the point, “When it’s gone, it’s gone!”

    Show the result of inaction. It’s easy to get so wrapped up in telling donors how much good they can do that we forget to represent the other side of the coin — what happens when the donor doesn’t give. So describe the dystopia that results when your donor doesn’t give — the lack, the pain, the suffering, the ever-growing need. The message your donors will receive is, “You’ll miss out on doing good and making a difference,” and it’ll help them decide to give.

     

     

  • Tell me a story — but make it fast

    Storytelling. It’s an essential part of persuasion for fundraising and marketing.

    But your story can’t be a rambling, meandering yarn that goes on without a point. Not in the hyper-paced, information-now world we live in. No, stories have to be focused and most of all succinct.

    How to stay on point? A good place to start is by crystallizing the message … to determine the crux of the story before writing to make sure the point you’re making is right out front.

    That’s where the six-word story comes in.

    What’s a six-word story? It’s kind of like a haiku poem with a dash of narrative thrown in. It gives just enough information for the reader to fill in the blanks. More importantly, it’s a great exercise to get to the heart of your story and keep it front and center as you write the longer version.

    One of the most famous six-word stories is this one from Hemmingway:

    For sale: baby shoes. Never used.

    Just six simple words that start the story playing in the reader’s head.

    For marketing, think of a case history about how someone used the product you’re selling; or for fundraising, how someone benefited from the services they received from the charity. Then pare it down to its essence, to six simple words.

    That’s the key message of your story.

    Try a six-word story when you’re working on your next marketing or fundraising project. It’s a great exercise.

    For inspiration, visit a great website – http://www.sixwordstories.com – and see stories on just about every conceivable topic that capture your imagination while they celebrate brevity. It is the soul of wit, after all.

  • What’s the right pacing for your promotional copy?

    A direct response letter – whether it’s for fundraising or for a consumer or B2B product –tends to take on a life of its own. It has a tone, a voice, an overall feel.

    A big part of creating that feel is pacing – how the letter moves along once the reader starts into it, how it progresses from beginning to end.

    Here are a couple of good examples from the fundraising world.

    The first is from Mercy Home, a well-known charity. The letter comes in a window envelope without any teaser.

    At the top of the letter is a Johnson Box that says, “If you read one letter from me this year, please read this one … because what I’m about to tell you is a limited-time opportunity – and concerns the future of every child at Mercy Home.”

    Then the letter begins:

    Dear Mrs. Joan Sample,

    I met recently with a member of our Board of Directors, a good friend of Mercy Home. And he gave me some of the biggest news I’ve heard in a very long time.

    He told me that if I can raise $52,000 by August 31 for our kids, he will match it with another $52,000!

    Allow me to explain.

    That means if you send a gift of $10 to help our kids right now – you’ll really be offering a total gift of $20 toward giving our kids the second chance they desperately need!

    Okay, it’s a matching grant appeal, a fairly commonplace offer to donors in which each gift is doubled by a charitable grant. But in this letter, it took a Johnson box and four paragraphs to get the reader to that point.

    Now compare that with a completely different way of pacing, this one from Bible League.

    The envelope has the teaser, “Now your gift will go twice as far! See inside …”

    At the top of the letter is a brief and direct overline – “Special grant will double your gift!” – and the letter dives right in.

    Dear Mrs. Joan Sample,

    Great news! Now your gift goes twice as far. You can place twice as many Bibles in the hands of the spiritually hungry who are begging for an opportunity to read God’s Word.

    Imagine – twice as many! And the best part is, there’s no need to add even one extra cent to the amount of your donation. I’m thrilled to tell you this, because demand for scripture is exploding. Here’s how it works …

    Notice the difference between these two approaches. The first mailing sidles up to the reader gingerly, almost tentatively. There’s the plain envelope, the Johnson box that refers somewhat vaguely to need. And even when the letter begins, it takes its time getting around to the matching grant, and then goes on to explain how the grant works.

    All of this is no doubt deliberate. Mercy Homes knows its donors. Maybe the charity rarely offers a matching grant and feels it must allow donors the time to warm up to the idea. Or maybe the slower pacing is simply intended to match the sentiments of its donors base, most of whom are seniors.

    It’s completely different from the second letter, the one from Bible League.

    Right from the get-go, this letter takes aim at the donor’s gift. The teaser on the envelope puts the matching grant squarely in the donor’s sights. The overline on the letter reinforces it, and then the letter immediately presents the benefit to the donor – the fact that her donation will be automatically doubled.

    Where the first letter is relaxed and calm in the way that it brings readers along, the second one is more rushed, more in-your-face, more of an overt push for a donation.

    These are two widely different ways of going about pacing a letter. It’s not that fast pacing is better than slow or that an overt push is better than a more subtle one. It just depends. Just as salesperson will sometimes mirror the gestures and expressions of his prospect, the pacing of a letter has to match up with the temperament of the reader. When it comes to results, getting that right makes all the difference.