Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: donor psychology

  • When not to thank your donors

    How to begin a fundraising appeal – that’s a tough one. You win or lose donors in those first few seconds. So the opening has to be spot on, and that’s not easy.

    Which is probably why so many appeals default to opening with a thank you to the donor for their support. It seems like a solid approach. Donors like to be thanked, right? But as this post from the Better Fundraising Company points out, it’s not a solid approach at all.

    The reason it’s not a good approach, they say, is that most donors will read the first line thanking them for their support and go no further, assuming that nothing is being asked of them. No doubt that’s true.

    And yet … the drive to open an appeal by thanking donors is incredibly strong. Many nonprofits can’t resist. Some, in fact, have it written into their list of fundamentals that every appeal shall begin with a thank you to the donor. Yes, that actually happens.

    Luckily, most nonprofits probably aren’t this extreme. Yet this opening-with-a-donor-thank-you thing persists.

    If it’s an absolute imperative to open with a thank you, then at least don’t let the thank you stand alone. Donors will assume nothing is being asked of them, as the Better Fundraising people say. Which means that the rest of appeal will probably go unread … and not acted upon.

    Instead, at least key the thank you to an offer, so that donors realize that they can do some good. It could be something like this: “Because your last gift of $15 made such a huge difference – thank you! – I writing to you about another powerful way to save someone who’s going hungry.”

    Better yet, keep the thank-you stuff for acknowledgement letters and newsletters, and use appeals to focus on the problem that donors can solve.

    It’s a shame for a nonprofit to restrict itself to one kind of opening for an appeal when there are so many clever gambits that we could use – openings that would grab donors’ attention, draw them into the appeal, and get them to donate. It’s a choice between raising more money and raising less.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Not doing a year-end appeal? Uh-Oh

    December is the biggest giving month. So, if you’re not doing a year-end appeal, you’re probably missing out. That’s because, according to nonprofit software firm Neon:

    • 31% of all annual giving takes place in December.
    • 12% of all giving happens in the last three days of the year.
    • 28% of nonprofits raise between 26% to 50% of their annual funds from their year-end ask.

    These stats show that there’s a lot of donor activity going on in this time frame. But get this:

    • Two-thirds of the people who give do no research beforehand.

    That’s even more surprising. It tells you that donors are primed for giving at year end. The money is there, and it’s just looking for a place to go where it can do some good. That place can and should be your nonprofit. That’s why the single most important thing you can do at year end is simply to ask.

  • Donor retention keeps falling – what to do about it

    Donor retention was down again last year. It’s part of a steady downward trend that’s been going on for the past decade. What’s going on? There are four possible reasons for donors’ increasing lack of loyalty:

    1. Completing the story in fundraising appeals – which leaves the donor out.
    2. Using safe, euphemistic language that doesn’t inspire anybody.
    3. Pairing a dire headline with a smiling face, sending mixed signals to donors.
    4. Sending out boring thank you letters.

    See more about each of each of these problems – and their solutions – in my guest post for Guidestar blog.

    Each of these can be addressed in the communications that donors receive. When retention drops, charities are forced to spend more on acquisition. And because it costs much more to acquire a donor than to retain one, charities end up spending more and more just to keep a sustainable donor base. It’s unfortunate, because donors want to give and will give if the opportunity is presented to them in the right way. See more here.

  • 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.

     

  • 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.’

     

     

     

     

  • Why informing donors doesn’t work in fundraising

    It’s all too easy to think that if donors had enough information about a nonprofit’s work that they would donate in droves.

    But, unfortunately, that’s not the case.

    Truth is, as fundraisers we run into a roadblock called confirmation bias. This is people’s tendency to accept information that already supports their beliefs and reject everything else. Cognitive scientists have been studying this for a while. They find that more information doesn’t change people’s minds. In fact, it causes them to be more entrenched in their views. See more, including study results, in my guest post at Future Fundraising Now.

    If we’re trying to persuade people to donate to a cause, information isn’t the way to do it. We have to move their hearts, not fill up their heads.

  • 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.