Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: copywriting

  • 5 ways to build rapport with donors

    If we want to engage donors, it’s important to reach out to them on their terms and in ways that avoid being seen as too pushy or too salesy.

    So, we want to build a friendly rapport with donors and show them that we’re on the same wavelength as they are. You can see more about it here, but there are five easy ways to do this:

    • Use logic, specifically the if-then statement to establish common ground.
    • Acknowledge your donor’s commitment, especially with donors who’ve given before.
    • Create a situation that your donor can identify with.
    • Make a confession that will create a bond with donors
    • Add a photo, so that donors can put a face with the signature on the appeal.

    Not surprisingly, donors don’t like to feel like someone’s twisting their arm in order to get them to give a gift. It’s not necessary to do that or even effective for fundraising. We can create a rapport with them instead. See more about this here.

     

  • When “Donor as Hero” is wrong for fundraising

    Lots of charities are telling their donors, “You’re a hero!” It’s become the go-to theme for fundraising of all kinds in a variety of sectors. But simply telling donors that they’re heroes falls way short of the goals of donor-centric fundraising. In fact, there are four main pitfalls to this approach:

    • It’s overused. When hero references are everywhere, they don’t mean much anymore.
    • It’s vague. Just stamping “Hero Campaign” on an appeal doesn’t really say anything that connects with donors.
    • It lacks believability. Telling donors they’re heroes isn’t a believable donor benefit.
    • It’s a metaphor not intended to be used literally. Donor-as-hero is often misinterpreted to mean that all you do is tell donors “You’re a hero!” and that makes the fundraising donor centric.

    See more about this here. Good direct response fundraising means developing a powerful offer, along with solid donor benefits and realistic reasons to give, not simply adding a label that says, “You’re a hero!”  Click here for more.

     

  • How too much collaboration ruins fundraising appeals

    There’s this idea that people seem to accept without even thinking about it. It’s the idea that all work is teamwork … that nothing can happen without the involvement of anyone and everyone … that any kind of collaboration is always inherently good.

    You see this all the time in environments where people do creative work like marketing and fundraising. Everyone from the proofreader to the receptionist to the account staff to a board member’s brother-in-law has a hand in the creative, making changes that are often based on little more than personal opinion.

    There are comments like, “I don’t like this” or “Can we change this to something else?” or “Why is this in here?” And invariably, there’s this one: “Change that – the client won’t approve it.” Then someone goes ahead and incorporates the changes, often without regard to the tone, presentation, or strategy goals of the appeal. Hey, we’re a collaborative team, right? So, all input is implemented without question.

    This might seem like collaboration since we’re involving everyone and being very egalitarian, but it isn’t collaboration. It’s creative by committee. It’s group think. It’s too many cooks in the kitchen.

    This isn’t to say that collaboration is bad. Not at all. Collaboration is vital. But ideally it’s limited to those individuals familiar with the strategy of the appeal, the target audience, the concept, the offer, and so on. This group discusses the appeal and the strategy, and reviews it based on strategy — not personal opinion, ego, or office politics. That’s collaboration.

    Creative by committee is something else entirely, and it’s deadly for fundraising. Because if we’re creating fundraising that a committee can approve, that doesn’t ruffle any feathers, that everyone can okay, then there’s a good chance it’s bland and boring. And that’s not going to excite donors.

     

  • The 10 Percent Solution in Fundraising. Or, Why Messaging Rules

    The standard in direct marketing, whether it’s fundraising or for-profit marketing, is that the mailing list will account for 60 percent of your success or failure … the offer accounts for 30 percent … and the creative? Just 10 percent.

    This is based on decades of marketing history, and it’s indisputable. But …

    Even though creative may be a measly 10 percent’s worth of the overall effort, that doesn’t mean it’s insignificant. That doesn’t mean you focus all your time on the list and the offer and just wave your hand over the creative and consider it good enough.

    No, weak creative — and especially, weak messaging — will doom a fundraising campaign.

    Now, of course, if the list is bad, your mailing goes to all the wrong people. That’s not good. And if the offer is bad or, more likely, vague, then even if your appeal does go to the right people, they’ll be bored by it. But think of it this way.

    What if your list and offer and good, but the messaging is off strategy? Response will suffer, guaranteed.

    Example: consider Nike, the literal powerhouse in branding. You can bet that before they do anything, they research and research to make sure every step they take is the right one. Let’s say they’re developing a new campaign. They do tons of market research. They map out their media strategy. They pour millions and millions of dollars into ad buys.

    And then, with all that as the backdrop, they introduce their new slogan, Just Try It. Wouldn’t THAT land with a thud? And all because the messaging was just a little bit … off.

    Suddenly that 10 percent for creative doesn’t seem quite so insignificant. Truth is, you can have all the data, strategy, and analytics in the world, but if the messaging in your appeal is off — even by a little bit — then your whole fundraising campaign will be too.

  • Why donors give

    Thanks go to fundraising expert Tom Ahern for this. In his excellent e-newsletter, he included the moving and inspiring words of Damian O’Broin on why he’s a fundraiser. The occasion was the opening of the 2017 Ask Direct Fundraising Summer School in Dublin. Yes, Damian’s address is about him and his chosen profession, but it’s also much more than that.

    With each of the reasons that Damian lays out for being a fundraiser, he also reveals why people are donors. And he does it in language that’s direct and powerful. Because donors give for reasons that are direct and powerful for them.

    Staring off, Damian talks a bit about his early life, and then gets down to the specifics about why he’s in fundraising, including such illuminating points as:

    • I’m a fundraiser because my mother died from lung cancer, and my Dad died from kidney failure.
    • I’m a fundraiser because we’re sleepwalking into catastrophic climate change.
    • I’m a fundraiser because we’re closer than ever to beating cancer.
    • I’m a fundraiser because two million people have fled for their lives in South Sudan.

    There are many more. For each of them, simply substitute “donor” for “fundraiser,” and you have the key to engaging donors and raising money.

    I’m a donor because my mother died of cancer … I’m a donor because we’re sleepwalking into catastrophic climate change … I’m a donor because two million people have fled South Sudan.

    You can read the text of Damian’s talk here.

    You’ll feel good about being a fundraiser, and when you include the word “donor,” you’ll better understand the direct and powerful reasons behind the decision to give.

    We have to remember that what’s going on in donors’ heads when they receive our fundraising appeals is their own personal reason for giving. That’s what we have to tap into.

    The fact is, we make fundraising complicated with all the talk about data, strategies, metrics, and so on. Those are important, but we can’t let them distract us.

    Because it’s really just about the person on the receiving end of our fundraising message. It’s really just about her and about her ‘why.’

     

     

     

     

  • Email fundraising idea to test

    There are lots of guidelines for fundraising emails about opt in, unsubscribe, and so on, that you’re probably well aware of.

    But in that required language is an opportunity to strengthen our fundraising messages. Hear me out.

    Most fundraising emails have an “unsubscribe” link that’s visible near the top. That’s required. Then, when you scroll all the way down to the footer of the email, where no one ever looks, you’ll see another “unsubscribe” link, the “forward to a friend” link perhaps, and probably social media icons.

    If look even further down in the footer, you’ll probably see another, boilerplate-sounding statement that seems like it’s required language. It will be something like: “You are receiving this email because you subscribed at www.ABCNonprofit.org” (or however people opt-in to your email list).

    Including this line isn’t mandatory, but it is a best practice, so it’s probably on your emails.

    Now, here’s the idea to test. Take this statement — “You are receiving this email because you subscribed at http://www.ABCNonprofit.org.” — and move it from the bottom of your email where nobody sees it to the very top of the email, so that it’s the first thing that donors will see when they open your email.

    Why? Because it will immediately set the tone by reminding donors that they asked to receive emails from you. (This is assuming of course that you’re not spamming donors but are generating your opt-in list from signups, and so your recipients actually did ask to join your email list.)

    Instead of donors thinking, “This is another email from ABC Nonprofit asking for money,” seeing that line of text just might reframe the whole email for them, so that they’re thinking, “This is one of those emails I opted-in to receive.”

    It’s also a plus that the line seems like mandatory /  regulatory language as opposed to marketing / fundraising language.

    Not a bad way to start off your fundraising message. So why not test it? Just take that line that’s now at the bottom of your email and move it all the way to the top. And if you do try it, share what happens.

  • When thanking your donor is a weak fundraising approach

    It seems like the most natural thing in the world to open a letter or email to a donor with something like: “Thank you so much for all of your generous support.”

    It’s putting attention on the donor. It’s conversational. It’s friendly. And it’s safe — after all, who would object to being thanked?

    It may seem like a good idea, but as an opening gambit to a donor when you’re going to lead up to an ask, it can sometimes be pretty weak.

    Because, for one thing, your donor should ideally have been acknowledged and thanked for previous gifts in a separate communication, and that’s where you would go overboard with appreciation and praise.

    But even more than that, opening a letter with a statement of thanks is weak when it’s used in the absence of a strong offer. Thanking your donor in the opening isn’t a substitute for leading with an offer. Nor is it a substitute for presenting the donor with an opportunity to make a difference.

    It’s even worse when the communication goes like this: “Thank you for all of your generous support. As you know, ABC Charity operates a variety of innovative programs and services in countries around the world, and our experts in logistics and international relief are among the best …”

    In cases like these, the “thank you” line is there simply to create the appearance of donor-centricity, while the rest of the message is all about the organization.

    There’s no question that it’s good to thank donors for their gifts. That’s why thank-you letters are crucial.

    And there are even times when thanking can work as an opening. For example: “Your last gift of $25 made a real difference in the fight against cancer. Thank you! And now, I have an even more exciting opportunity to help end cancer as we know it.”

    Here the thank you is keyed to a reminder of the last gift amount as well as to donor impact and donor opportunity.

    The opening in a letter or an email is how you’re positioning and framing the entire message to your donor. It has to be right, or the communication won’t get read.

    That’s why one of the most reliable letter leads (among many others, of course) is, “I’m writing to you because …” Whatever you fill in to finish that sentence will most likely be a valid proposition to your donor and an opportunity to have an impact.

     

  • Is your fundraising too dramatic? Good!

    Effective fundraising copywriting has some qualities that seem to get under the skin of the people who review it. Jeff Brooks has written about this on FutureFundraisingNow.

    It’s simple, repetitive, emotional, dramatic, and makes people uncomfortable. These are all good things, not bad things. Especially that second-to-last one — dramatic.

    To break through the clutter, copy has to have drama. But then it’s called “over the top” and “too dramatic.”

    It’s a misguided criticism by reviewers, and to prove it to yourself, just watch TV.

    In one Cadillac TV ad, seemingly normal people on a city sidewalk suddenly acquire expressions of beatific rapture as they turn (in cinematic slo-mo) to swoon at the sight of the car passing by (also in cinematic slo-mo). Sun glints off the windshield. The pedestrians then gaze in admiration at the driver, who belies the slightest, most barely perceptible yet knowing look of pride and status.

    These people have been transported into realms of enchantment because they have never before in their lives beheld a car as beautiful as this one.

    Is that ad over-the-top dramatic? You bet it is. Did Cadillac’s ad agency use every dramatic effect in the toolbox? Of course. Do they know how to persuade people to buy Cadillacs? Yes they do.

    Cadillac is merely selling cars, and yet they pull out all the stops without hesitation.

    We’re saving lives, transforming lives, changing the world. If anyone has a legitimate right to use every dramatic effect possible it’s fundraisers. Copywriting that’s too dramatic? If it’s within ethical boundaries and it stirs donors and moves them to do good, then there’s no such thing.

     

     

  • Rage donating — what does it mean for our fundraising?

    Donations to progressive charities took off after President Trump was elected. And since then, this kind of ‘backlash’ giving has come to be known as rage donating.

    It’s been called a lazy, middle-class citizen’s form of protest as well as a new form of donor motivation.

    But is it really new? And is it really a lazy protest?

    For the people who give to causes, this kind of giving isn’t new at all. You see an abused-animal story on the news that outrages you, and you give to the ASPCA. You see a homeless panhandler on the street, then give to The Salvation Army. You hear about the rise of a hate group, then give to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    People have been reacting to events by donating probably as long as there have been nonprofits.

    What’s more, for those who give to causes, there’s nothing lazy about it.

    This is a legitimate way to make your feelings known and make a difference. Sure, you could bend your neighbor’s ear about the need to save Social Security. Or pick up a sign and march in front of the Capitol to protest entitlement cuts.

    Those are good things to do, but in and of themselves, the impact will be fleeting, even though it might be momentarily satisfying. But by donating to a nonprofit, you can bring the full weight of that organization to bear on the problem, and that’s more likely to actually cause something to change.

    Is so-called rage donating the new anger-driven way of giving that it’s being hyped up to be? Doesn’t seem like it.

    Instead, it’s more like the natural result when a nonprofit’s messaging is relevant and in step with the donor’s values. And that’s just good fundraising.

     

     

  • What’s wrong with using emotion in fundraising?

    When we use strong emotions in our donor appeals, is it poverty porn or just good fundraising? See my guest post on the topic here.

    One of the conclusions of a recent article in SOFI is that negative emotions can highlight a problem, but positive emotions create more behavioral change.

    So does this mean we should use only positive emotions in appeals? That wouldn’t work, for obvious reasons. Human beings are not one dimensional in any area of life. Why should our charitable giving be any different?

    There are wide range of emotional motivators to choose from. There’s no need to restrict ourselves to just one or two. Instead, it’s better to use as many as possible. Here’s why.