Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: donors

  • Give your donors a specific problem to solve

    Not sure why nonprofits do this…

    The teaser on the outer envelope is “Share hope this summer.” And the subhead is “See inside how you’re making an impact for neighbors like Ken.” There’s also a photo, presumably of Ken.

    This says practically nothing to a potential donor. It’s soft and mushy. It’s vague and abstract. And it fails to present a problem the donor can solve.

    In this case, the problem is real and specific. It’s life or death, in fact. People who are homeless will suffer and die in the searing heat of the summer, especially with temperatures soaring above 100 degrees.

    That’s what we’re talking about here. That’s the problem, and “Share hope this summer” doesn’t begin to cover it.

    The letter copy also avoids the problem. It opens with Ken’s story about how he’s homeless and how his skin condition is worsened by the heat, then shifts to, “The high temperatures of summer can make life without shelter dangerous. You can make a profound difference for our neighbors with a generous gift of $10, $15, or even $20 today.”

    “High temperatures can make life dangerous” isn’t a specific problem, and “you can make a profound difference” isn’t a specific solution. What will my $10 do? Nowhere in the letter does it say, other than bland phrases like “providing critical services and programs.”

    So, why do nonprofits do this? Maybe they’re afraid of being criticized for “saviorism” or “othering.” Maybe they don’t want their appeals to be a downer. Maybe they think talking about a problem somehow overshadows the good work they do. Maybe…who knows?

    The reality is that not presenting a problem to donors results in soft, mushy appeals that just make donors shrug. You want appeals that are direct and to the point, because they make donors react. See more about this here.

  • Grammar rules you can’t break in fundraising copy and some you can

    Grammar rules? For fundraising copy?

    Yes.

    Hold on a minute. Shouldn’t fundraising copy be all informal and conversational? And doesn’t “conversational” mean that we routinely break so-called grammar rules and begin sentences with “and” or “but,” use contractions, end sentences with prepositions, and more?

    Yes to that too.

    But still, there are some grammar rules you can’t break, simply because breaking them causes confusion for readers – and that we definitely don’t want. Here are three of those unbreakable rules (from my article in NonProfitPRO: https://tinyurl.com/4pnwtpx8).

    The dangling modifier. Take this example: “It’s so easy to forget that plants are quiet miracles. Often small, underfoot, and seemingly plentiful, we overlook their clever design and chemical superpowers.” In the second sentence, the phrase “Often small, underfoot, and seemingly plentiful” modifies “we” when it should modify “plants.” It’s not we who are often small, underfoot, and seemingly plentiful. It’s plants. This error is really common, but it causes a lot of confusion for readers.

    Subject-verb agreement. You wouldn’t say “Children in Darfur is starving,” you’d say, “Children in Darfur are starving.” That’s pretty obvious subject-verb agreement. The problem comes in when other phrases get in the way. Take this example: “A shipment of lifesaving vaccines are being unloaded now in Africa.” The problem is that the subject of the sentence is “shipment,” not “vaccines.” The verb has to agree with “shipment.” That sentence should be “A shipment of lifesaving vaccines is being unloaded…” not “are being unloaded.”

    Run-on sentence. This is when two sentences are jammed together without the right punctuation, as in: “Too many seniors are struggling with hunger and isolation, they need the help that your gift provides.” That comma is linking those two separate ideas. It’s an error called a comma splice. They should really be linked with a semicolon, or better yet, they should be two separate sentences.

    A grammatical error in fundraising copy isn’t the end of the world, of course. Still, errors like these can cause confusion and distract donors from the fundraising message. And when that happens, you’re more likely to lose the donation instead of winning it.

  • Why your fundraising appeal needs more urgency

    There’s a moment when your donor looks over your direct mail or email appeal and thinks, “I’ll put this aside for now and maybe help with that a little later.”

    That’s the moment when you realize your appeal didn’t have something it needed – urgency.

    Here are some ways around that problem from my article, How to Ramp Up the Urgency in Appeals and Boost Response, in Nonprofit Pro.

    Use a deadline. We’re all conditioned to respond to deadlines. This includes actual deadlines (like year end, Giving Tuesday, and others), sensible deadlines (like National Doctor’s Day, fund drive deadlines, and so on), and even random deadlines (like ‘respond in the next 7 days.’). Deadlines tend to focus the mind.

    Create immediacy. Center your appeal around a timeframe in the very near future. That makes your ask more actionable. “Your gift today will save the life of someone who’s homeless. Just a few weeks from now, in January, temperatures will plummet. That’s no time to be out on the street. The cold kills. Before that happens, please give now to provide safe shelter.”

    Show the consequences of not giving. Often, avoiding a negative outcome is more motivating. “Our criminal justice system in this country is unjust for low-income people. Please give now to help create a more equal justice system by eliminating cash bail. Unless you help, people who are detained before trial because they can’t make bail will lose their jobs, their housing, and even custody of their children.”

    Amp up the emotion. You could say, “Help reduce infant mortality in Africa” or you could make it more emotional with something like “In a cinder-block hut in Uganda, a young mother, weeping. A father, broken. Their newborn baby girl lies dead, open mouthed to the night air. Please give now when just $25 can save a precious new life.” An emotional ask is more urgent in a way that a bland, factual ask could never be.

    Urgency is vital in appeals. Because sometimes donors just need that little, extra nudge to realize all the good they can do.

  • Is this fundraising that works?

    The overline at the top of the fundraising letter reads, “You can join your neighbors to help families facing hunger.”

    So far, so good. Everybody’s against hunger. Then, this: “Every $1 can help feed a family of 3!”

    One thing’s for sure: that exclamation point is certainly justified if only one dollar can feed a family of three. That’s amazing, especially with food prices the way they are today.

    The body copy of the letter begins: “This is the time of year when we pause to reflect on what we’re grateful for…” It goes on in that vein for a few paragraphs, talking about hunger and the holidays.

    Then, here it is again: “every $1 you give to [charity] can help provide 3 meals – enough to feed a family in our community.”

    So, a little confusing here. First, $1 feeds a family of three. Then, $1 provides three meals. Apparently, feeding a family means just one meal per person. But that’s not the real difficulty here.

    No, the problem is the believability of the offer: $1 feeding a family of three. How could that possibly be? It’s just not a credible statement. It’s not believable. The letter explains that it’s “because of our network of food pantries and food bank partners,” but that’s really not much of a rationale.

    Wait, hold on a sec. I see what’s going on here. It’s that weasel-word “help.” “Every $1 can HELP feed a family of 3.” We’re not saying that every $1 actually will feed a family of three. No, we’re saying every $1 can help.

    Well, if that’s the case, then, technically speaking, every $1 that I give can help feed a family of 10. It can help feed all the families in the city. It can help feed all the families in the state. Technically, every $1 that I give can help end world hunger. Because, you know, wink, wink, we’re not saying that every $1 actually will end world hunger — we’re just saying that it can help.

    Call me skeptical, but this kind of thing seems a little questionable. It’s almost as if the charity is counting on donors simply glancing at this and thinking, “Hmm, one dollar feeds a family of three? Okay, I’ll give,” without even noticing the little weasel-word that undercuts the whole thing.

    It’s too bad. The appeal starts with a good template for an offer along the lines of “$XX will feed XX people,” but then it goes sideways. It uses numbers that strain credibility and defy simple common sense, and then on top of that, it makes the whole thing misleading for donors.

    First of all, why raise questions in donors’ minds with numbers and dollar values that seem completely unreasonable? Second, and probably more to the point, wouldn’t it have been better to figure out what the actual dollar value is for providing a meal, and then build a case for giving around that as an opportunity for donors to do good? That way, the offer to donors would be believable as well as credible. And at the end of the day, that’s the kind of offer that’s going to work best in the short term and the long term to move donors to give and keep them giving to support a cause.

  • Reaching mid-level donors with direct mail

    You probably hear a lot about mid-level donors, and that’s for good reason. For most nonprofits, these donors represent a major opportunity for short-term and long-term growth. It’s a revenue source that’s largely untapped. The potential is there, waiting to be realized.

    So, who are mid-level donors? Defining mid-level donors will vary for different nonprofits, of course, depending on the size of your nonprofit. But in general, for many nonprofits, mid-level donors are those who give about $1,000 to $9,000 a year.

    Another way to look at it comes from Sean Triner of Moceanic. The Pareto Principle tells us that 80 percent of your donations come from about 20 percent of your donors. That 20 percent consists of about 4 percent for major donors and about 16 percent for mid-level donors. Keep in mind, this is a rough guideline. It won’t work out exactly this way for every charity, but it gives you an idea of where to start in determining who your mid-level donors are.

    Defining your mid-level donors is a good first step. Because the real problem is that most nonprofits tend to overlook these important donors. That’s because they give too much to be considered typical annual fund donors, and at the same time, they give too little to be considered typical major donors. They’re the “middle child” in fundraising – the ones with loads of potential who nevertheless go unnoticed.

    And that’s too bad. Because when nonprofits cultivate and communicate with mid-level donors, it’s possible to:

    • Generate game-changing growth. Remember, mid-value and major donors give almost 80 percent of your revenue. But for many nonprofits, mid-level donors are underperforming. The potential is there for them to give more.
    • Create a class of donors who can be cultivated to move up to major giving.
    • Provide a stream of promising leads for planned giving and legacy gifts. Along with mid-level donors, bequest donors represent one of the best opportunities for revenue growth.
    • Increase donor retention, since donors who give at higher levels tend to remain more loyal.

    Successfully cultivating mid-level donors will require research, data analysis, as well as some means of personal contact, such as telephone calls or even personal donor visits. You’ll want to contact these donors in various ways – ways that correspond to their preferences, of course.

    It takes a comprehensive program. But one key to the program is a specialized direct mail appeal. All the analysis and fundraising strategy will come to nothing unless the approach to communicating with these donors is the right one.

    In general, mid-level donors are less transactional in their giving than most annual-fund donors and far more relational. This is why standard direct mail probably won’t work for them. But specialized direct mail can and will.

    What’s needed is a bigger, better, more strategic direct mail pack – not simply a fancier version of a typical annual-fund mailing.

    Mid-level donors need to be approached in a unique way that demonstrates the impact, stewardship, and engagement they expect. In general, they respond best when there’s a specific program or initiative, when they receive plenty of information, and when they’re acknowledged as being part of a group of select supporters.

    This specialized mail pack has higher production values than you’d use for regular donors. It often has a 9 x 12 envelope. It has a multiple-page letter, with copywriting that conveys the right tone and copy voice for higher-dollar donors. It’s on better-quality paper. It’s highly personalized throughout. It has multiple components – brochures, lift notes, inserts, and so on – that provide plenty of information, both in terms of factual information and emotional content. And it has a full-page reply device that not only presents the ask but reinforces the reasons to give. This is the kind of direct mail appeal that will tend to cut through the clutter and attract attention.

    A pack like this will of course cost more than the mailings you send to regular donors. But to reach mid-value donors and cultivate them, it’s important to focus not on cutting costs but on maximizing revenue. There may be areas in your fundraising where it makes sense to pinch pennies, but not here. A cheap direct mail appeal for mid value donors is likely to fail. But a higher-quality appeal that communicates the exclusivity, personal attention, insider status, and insider information that mid-level donors expect is likely to succeed and generate the revenue you want.

  • Should you do a year-end fundraising appeal?

    Yes, and here’s why.

    It’s one of the easiest appeals to create. And it can be one of the biggest revenue producers of the year. About 30 percent of most nonprofits’ revenue comes in between Giving Tuesday and December 31. At year end, donors are looking for a place to give. That place could be and should be your nonprofit.

    The messaging for the appeal is usually pretty straightforward, emphasizing the Dec. 31 deadline  and how your donor’s gift will help your nonprofit end the year strong and begin the New Year strong.

    The design of the appeal should be equally simple and straightforward. No need to go overboard on photos and graphics. In most cases, simple is best for year end.

    And don’t forget email. A lot of online giving happens in the last three or four days of the year. Your emails can and should be showing up in your donors’ inboxes, so that they can support the good work your nonprofit is doing.

    For more on year end fundraising, see Best Practices for Year-End Fundraising (nonprofitpro.com)

  • The offer in fundraising

    In direct response fundraising, what’s an offer?

    Is it like the offer in commercial direct marketing, or is it completely different?

    Why does the offer matter?

    Is it really the most important thing in a letter appeal or email appeal, as some say?

    If you include an offer in an appeal, won’t that just make your fundraising seem too transactional?

    Is the offer just an exchange of money for outcomes, or does it do more to actually motivate and inspire donors to give?

    Sure, an offer may work in a letter, but what if you’re more interested in your nonprofit’s brand. An offer doesn’t have anything to do with that, does it?

    Good questions, all. Let’s take a closer look at some answers here: https://tinyurl.com/22e74ea4

  • One sure way to make your fundraising better

    The single best thing you can do to improve your fundraising?

    Come to terms with a hard truth: You are not your donors.

    They’re probably older than you, for one thing, which means they have a completely different frame of reference, and for another thing, they have a completely different perspective about your organization, because they’re on the outside, not “in the bubble” like you are.

    These differences in perspective between you and your donors can cause problems when you’re creating your fundraising appeals.

    For example, these differences will influence the photos you use in your direct mail and email appeals, the kinds of stories you tell in your appeals, and how you write and structure your appeals.

    And all three of these will have a huge impact on how much money you’ll raise. There’s more to this. Get the whole story here: https://tinyurl.com/ewntb8h9

  • Want more of your regular donors to become monthly donors?

    Nonprofits love monthly donors for obvious reasons. Monthly donors give consistently, require less frequent fundraising, and tend to be more loyal.

    But to get regular donors to opt into monthly donor status, you have to make this seem like something they would want to do. Which makes this email effort so puzzling. It begins:

    I’m deeply grateful for your support as we work together to bring needed resources to our neighbors experiencing homelessness. 

    As our partner, you’ve truly provided a lifeline to many local community members, especially with the current high cost of living and the uncertainty that accompanies it. 

    That’s the opening. And for these two paragraphs, I’m wondering why they’re writing to me at all, except to express gratitude and suggest that our work is completed, since I’ve apparently already “provided a lifeline.”  I’m thinking “what’s this about? Is it a thank-you email?” It goes on:

    Because I know we share the vision of a community without homelessness, I’m inviting you today to join the [monthly donor program name], the [nonprofit’s] monthly giving circle. 

    Members of [monthly donor program name] donate monthly to ensure vital services are available all year long. This support is critical in ending the cycle of homelessness. 

    Oh, so that’s it. They want me to become a monthly donor. But wait a second, I thought that as an occasional donor I was already ‘sharing the vision’ and ‘ending the cycle of homelessness’ with the gifts I give, at least that’s what they’ve been telling me. It continues:

    With your [monthly donor program name] membership, you can help countless neighbors regain self-sufficiency and hope for the future.  

    Again, I thought I was already doing this with the gifts I currently give. It continues:

    And by signing up online, you can automate monthly gifts, save money on postage, and help reduce administrative costs, too — all while providing access to vital care for community members facing homelessness. 

    It’s only at this point, at the end of the email, that I see some reasons why I might actually want to become a monthly donor. But these reasons are only tacked on as an afterthought.

    A couple things about this. First, there’s this idea that every communication to a donor has to open with gratitude for their support. Sure, there’s a time for thanking and appreciating donors. But not in every communication. What’s more, by telling me that I’ve already provided a lifeline to community members, they’re suggesting that the job is completed, so what do you need me for as a donor?

    Second, if you want me to change my pattern of behavior – like going from an occasional donor to a monthly donor – you better give some pretty good reasons to do it. And those reasons should probably be at or very close to the beginning of the email in order to get my attention.

    Even more to the point, those reasons should be compelling. In this email, I’m offered the opportunity to “automate monthly gifts, reduce postage costs, and help reduce administrative costs.” These aren’t exactly barnburners. Not many donors are sitting in front of their computer thinking, “Gee, I’d really like to automate monthly gifts.”

    There are good, solid reasons a donor would consider becoming a monthly donor, but you have to lay out those reasons explicitly and do it in a way that’s interesting and advantageous for the donor. You can’t expect donors to fill in the gaps on their own and convince themselves. They won’t. Instead, they’ll just move onto the next email.  

  • Two ways to begin a fundraising appeal – from Jerry Huntsinger

    In Jerry Huntsinger’s “86 Tutorials in Creating Fundraising Letters and Packages,” he makes a point about how to begin a fundraising appeal.

    He makes his point with an example. It’s an appeal for a cancer charity. It begins:

    “Children shouldn’t have to face the devastation of cancer and death. But they do. Each year, hundreds of children…”

    It’s the standard, institutional, boilerplate blah, blah, blah. Jerry notes that where the letter actually begins is in the fifth paragraph, with this:

    “Lance was diagnosed with leukemia two days before Christmas. He was 2 years old. ‘Lance was so sick that they flew us to Twin Cities for immediate treatment,’ his mother said. ‘His platelets were so low that his teeth bled through the night.’”

    BAM – there you are, right in the middle of the drama. Nothing institutional about that. Nothing blah, blah, blah about that. Especially that detail about the boy’s teeth bleeding – that detail gets you.

    Sure, starting an appeal with a story is a tried-and-true approach. But here’s the point. The first opening – “Children’s shouldn’t have to face …” – is basic expository prose. It’s simply explaining something. It’s simply conveying a generalization about children and cancer. It’s not trying to involve you. (It’s something you’d get from ChatGPT if you asked it to write an appeal about childhood cancer.)

    The second opening – “Lance was diagnosed …” – is meant specifically to involve you. It’s telling you that this letter is about a human drama playing out right before your eyes. It’s one human being talking to another.

    As Jerry says, the second opening will raise more money.