Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: donor psychology

  • “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.

     

  • 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 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.

     

  • One big reason to ramp up your major donor marketing

    Now’s the time to do more than ever to engage major donors, and here’s why.

    The U.S. economy is minting new millionaires at a stunning pace. According to one study, the number of millionaire households shot up from 13.7 million to 16.3 million in just one year, from 2012 to 2013.

    And yet, according to other research, the rich and super-rich have cut back on their giving. From 2006 to 2012 — encompassing the Great Recession and recovery — wealthy donors reduced their share of income going to charity.

    So, right now, the rich are a vastly under-tapped source of funding.

    But here’s the interesting part.

    During that same period, the poor increased their giving. They gave a larger share of their income.

    Yes, the poor gave more, and the rich gave less. And it’s is even more surprising since most poor and middle class folks were hammered by the recession.

    The rich, on the other hand, actually did better during that time. What’s more, the number of people entering the privileged classes continues to increase as the income gap widens.

    Which means, of course, that your major-donor prospects keep getting wealthier and the pool of these donors keeps getting bigger. It’s not hard to see that you probably need to pay a lot more attention to high-dollar donors.

    One stumbling block is that the rich and poor give to difference causes. The poor give to churches and soup kitchens, but millionaires tend to give to the arts and universities.

    But even if your nonprofit isn’t in one of those sectors, you can and should engage wealthy donors. And why not? Why shouldn’t your cause get some of this funding? At first, try something simple like versioning a mail appeal for bigger donors, and then move on to campaigns, including mail, email, events, and personal-contact touch points. Have your nonprofit put on its best suit, shine its shoes, comb its hair, and get in front of these donors. Make your case. The upside potential is huge.

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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.

     

     

  • One of the real lessons from Obama fundraising

    By now the fundraising tips to be gleaned from Obama’s 2012 fundraising strategy have been picked over by just about everyone.

    You know — the casual tone in emails, unconventional subject lines like “hey” and “wow,” the low-dollar asks, the testing, and more. That’s all very interesting. But it’s not the good stuff. This is.

    The Obama fundraising team in 2012 segmented their files based on their donors’ interests. They amassed mountains of data from every conceivable source – donors’ zip codes, surveys, event attendance, Facebook, responses given to canvassers, and more. Even better, this data, after it was compiled and analyzed, was made available in one place for the fundraising team. Even better still, the whole endeavor was imperceptible to the donor. So when a donor interested in, say, climate change got an email about green technologies, she simply thought Obama was singing her song. Not a bad way to engage donors, and it obviously worked.

    This was done through a complex data and analytics methodology, of course — something that would be beyond the reach of many nonprofits.

    But let’s blue-sky just for a moment about what it would be like.

    Instead of using tactics to reach Millennials, Baby Boomers, or whatever the next generational cohort is … and instead of approaching donors based on a numerical score indicating when they gave last and how much, we could go a lot deeper. We could engage donors on their own terms on the basis of what moves them personally and what they’re passionate about.

    Let’s say we have a donor, Sally, who decides to attend a walk-a-thon for heart disease.

    Does it really matter whether she’s 20, 30, or 60 years old? Why should her generational label determine how we communicate with her in subsequent appeals? And really, how important is it to know that she gave $10 five weeks ago?

    Wouldn’t it be far more useful to know that Sally took part in this event because her husband has heart disease and she wants to know about research and treatment for arteriosclerosis?

    When Sally starts getting appeals talking about breakthroughs in unclogging arteries  — an interest that goes right to her core — would she see them as an intrusion? Or would those appeals seem intensely relevant, immediate, and significant? You know the answer. When we can directly address donors’ personal interests and values, that’ll be a song they listen to.

  • 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.