Fundraising Copywriter George Crankovic

Tag: nonprofit

  • The best reason to ask your donors more often to give

    Lots of charities are shy about asking for donations. They don’t want to mail or email too often out of fear of seeming too pushy. And even in their appeals themselves, it seems like they’re trying to work up the courage to ask, with all the hemming and hawing and beating around the bush before coming out and asking for a donation.

    Why is that?

    There’s no reason to feel that fundraising is manipulating or shaking down donors. The fact is that giving is good. It’s good for the person receiving the generosity, naturally, and it’s just as good for the giver. Both benefit.

    Christianity says so. The Bible says “whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Corinthians 9:6). (link)

    Judaism says so. Helping the poor is an obligation in Judaism known as “tzedakah” in Hebrew. In tzedakah, the gifts that are given to others eventually return to the giver. (link)

    Islam says so. Believers are entreated to be generous. The Koran says “And whatever you spend in good, it will be repaid to you in full, and you shall not be wronged.” (link)

    Buddhism says so. Generosity is one of the three tenants of Buddhism, stressing that the giver should feel a sense of joy before, during, and after the act of giving. (link)

    Atheism says so. In fact, as this report explains, even without the heavenly reward for charitable acts that most religions promise, atheists are still generous givers. They say, “We don’t need God to do good,” pointing out that, even without belief, giving is personally rewarding. (link)

    With apologies to any faith or group unintentionally omitted here, it looks like there’s one thing that people of every stripe can agree on, and it’s the foundational idea, as old as humanity, that’s it’s good to give. And if it’s good to give, then it has to be at least as good to ask.

    So there’s no reason to shy away from the ask, whether it’s in a direct mail letter, an email appeal, or face to face.

    Ask freely, ask enthusiastically, ask honestly, ask boldly, ask early, and ask often. Will you get a “too much mail” donor complaint here and there? Maybe. But you can’t let that dictate what you do for the far greater number of donors who welcome the opportunity to help. The larger issue is that giving is good for donors, good for your nonprofit, and good for your nonprofit’s beneficiaries. It’s so good, in fact, that it’s just plain good. And how many things can you say that about?

  • The right offer for your year-end appeal

    Like all appeals, your year-end appeal should start with a solid offer.

    The fundraising offer is a statement of what the donor receives in return for giving. It’s the deal, the transaction, the quid pro quo. It’s how the donor and nonprofit connect.

    The offer should convey:

    • Why you’re writing to the donor.
    • What you want your donor to do.
    • Why the donation is a good deal.
    • Why the donor should give now.
    • What the donor gets out of it (benefits of giving).
    • Why your donor’s support matters.

    While many of your other appeals during the year will be more relational, the year-end appeal is usually more transactional. So in your year-end appeal, your offer could be something like this:

    Give your tax-deductible gift now before December 31 to help us end the year strong, begin the New Year in a better position, and sustain vital programs that fight hunger and poverty for people in need.

    For most donors, this simple offer is compelling. There’s the deadline, the benefits to the donor, the specific action to take, and the reasons to do it. This is proven direct response that works.

  • Year-end fundraising: easy way to get the messaging right

    It’s true – now’s the time to start thinking about year-end fundraising. The end of the year is a crucial time for nonprofits, because most of the gifts that nonprofits receive come in during December. We’ve all seen that stats about how important year end is.

    So, sure, you want to do a year end appeal. That’s a given. But what do you say to donors to get them to respond?

    Luckily, the messaging for this appeal is pretty simple and straightforward. Basically, you want to emphasize:

    1. The urgency of the December 31 deadline.
    2. Tax deductibility. Even though most donors don’t itemize, tax deductibility is still a potential donor benefit, and should be part of your year-end appeal. You can even say on the reply form: Any gift that is postmarked before midnight on December 31 could be fully deductible on your taxes.
    3. Sustain the nonprofit’s programs and services.
    4. Help the nonprofit end the year strong.
    5. Help the nonprofit begin the New Year in a better position to pursue its mission.
    6. Do one more act of compassion before the year comes to a close.

    The year-end appeal is essentially these message points.

    You can include a story about someone who was helped, accomplishments that the donor helped make possible, or other donor-focused elements if you’d like, but often this isn’t necessary.

    In most cases, keeping the appeal simple and direct, focusing on the deadline, is the most effective copy platform.

     

     

  • When donor centrism is at odds with your donors

    Donor centrism means putting the donor at the center of the organization’s fundraising and, in fact, everything the organization does. It means, as fundraising expert Simone Joyaux says, building trust — trust that donors play a critical role in the charity’s success, trust that the charity does worthwhile things with donations, and trust that the charity operates efficiently.

    It’s the ideal that charities aspire to, or should.

    But what happens when the work your organization is committed to doing is suddenly at odds with what your donors want? This is what that the ACLU has grappled with after the events in Charlottesville, Va., in August.

    You’ll recall that white supremacist groups marched in Charlottesville and were countered by anti-fascist protestors.

    What’s less widely known is that city officials tried to revoke the permit to protest removal of the Gen. Robert E. Lee statue. The city wanted to move the protest out of the downtown location to an open area about a mile away for easier crowd control. The city was sued by the ACLU, and the judge ruled against the city. The protest took place in downtown Charlottesville as originally planned.

    The ACLU was of course acting in accordance with its mission to defend the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. But donors were outraged. A board member even resigned over it.

    Further complicating the problem, the ACLU is one of the many charities that benefitted from the so-called Trump bump – a big increase in donations after the election of Donald Trump. The donors who gave probably did so as a form of protest against the kind of nationalism that the ACLU appeared to defend.

    So where does that leave the ACLU? Have they broken trust with their donors? And does that mean they’re not donor centric?

    For that matter, should any charity ever act in ways that differ from its donors’ wishes? Or does a charity have the obligation to pursue its mission and act on its ideals regardless of the consequences? And if so, should the charity expect its donors to come along with them and continue to give, or should the charity assume that some donors will fall away in cases like this, and just chalk it up to attrition?

    These questions go to the core of what it means to be donor centric. Usually, when we talk about donor centrism, it centers around using “you” in fundraising copy, thanking donors properly, getting donor data right to avoid embarrassing mistakes, reporting back to donors about outcomes, and so on.

    These are critical, no doubt about it. But as the episode with the ACLU shows, donor centrism goes straight to the charity’s core and its mission.

    In situations like this, the charity has to determine its next steps wisely.

    One thing’s for certain, though. An issue like the ACLU faces is not one to address in your fundraising, because that puts you in the position of explaining and educating.

    That’s not a good position to be in because, first, it pulls you away from your main goal of generating funds. Second, it’s a low-involvement strategy, because donors don’t want to be educated by the charities they support. The response to this kind of approach will likely be dismal. And third, it gets donors to think, and fundraising works best when we can get donors to feel something about the cause or the need.

    Some ways to counter bad press could include blog posts, Facebook posts, videos on YouTube, talking with reporters, and other PR strategies. Some of which the ACLU has done.

    But more to the point, in an act of donor centrism, the ACLU has recently changed its policy. According to PBS, the ACLU will no longer represent supremacist groups that demonstrate with guns. And that, no doubt, will go a long way toward re-establishing trust with donors.

  • Are you a good fundraiser? Try this simple self-check.

    Your appeals get your donors involved and engaged in your nonprofit and mission, right?

    If you’re ready to find out, try this self-check.

    Call one of your donors out of the blue. You’ll be shocked. Because, odds are, your donor:

    • Doesn’t know what your nonprofit does beyond something hazy like helping people or fighting poverty. And doesn’t really care to know much more.
    • Doesn’t care what your mission statement says. Hasn’t read it, doesn’t plan to.
    • Doesn’t know what your programs are or any successes that you’ve had.
    • Doesn’t know she’s in your sustainer program and doesn’t know you have a sustainer program or even what that is. She only knows that she gives $10 a month when the reminder comes.
    • Doesn’t really want your appeals and newsletters. She usually just glances at that stuff and tosses it.
    • Doesn’t know that the appeal she just responded to featured a matching grant. Didn’t look at it that closely.

    Sure, we all realize that what donors say is usually different from how they respond. So just because one donor doesn’t know or care much about your nonprofit but still gives, that’s okay, right?

    Maybe. But what if large blocks of your donors feel this way? What if they’re giving out of habit or some philanthropic reflex and not because they love your nonprofit and value what you do? That’s scary. Because if they’re not loving you, they’re leaving you. Attrition will steamroller you.

    So what do you do? You do more. More donor engagement, more donor focus, more donor communication.

    Don’t release an appeal until it sings. Don’t send a newsletter until you can’t believe how good the stories are — with a protagonist, conflict, a plot, and a point. Don’t fear ‘bothering’ your donors. The more they hear from you, the more they’ll like it. Don’t just go through the motions with social media. Provide content that’s good enough to share. Don’t just have a website. Give donors videos, images, stories, infographics, and more.

    But mainly, don’t just communicate with donors. Hit the hot buttons of their values, motivations, and aspirations. Animate those feelings, and you’ll get right to the core of what drives your donors’ giving as well as their loyalty.

     

  • Book review: “Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser”

    “Your nonprofit is siloed.” That’s something you never want to hear. If you do, then your organization’s departments all have their own agendas, lack a common vision, and fail to communicate with each other. Everyone is working at cross-purposes, trying to go in different directions at once, instead of one clear direction.

    That’s why the new e-book — Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser  — from Nonprofit Funderland is particularly relevant. It combines the experience and insight from the three principals of the organization — all veteran fundraisers — who’ve seen when nonprofits work well and when they don’t. That is, when nonprofits are centered around the donor and when they’re not.

    One anecdote in the book sums it up. A donor visits a nonprofit for a meeting with the executive director only to be met by a rude receptionist who ignores him, continuing instead to talk on the phone with her friend. The donor, thoroughly insulted, has his meeting with the executive director. A short meeting, to announce that he’s ending his support. Generous, long-term support. Ouch. Lesson learned.

    That’s the underlying spirit of the book — that a nonprofit centered around the donor, and therefore free of silos, is a better nonprofit. Better at fundraising and better at achieving its mission. In exploring this theme, the book delves into concepts of interest to fundraisers in organizations large and small. For example:

    • Creating a nimble nonprofit where good fundraising can thrive.
    • How and where to find new audiences for fundraising.
    • Why a nonprofit can and should be entrepreneurial.
    • Applying the 80/20 rule to donor engagement versus cultivation in your online fundraising.
    • Ways your digital strategy can improve donor acknowledgement.
    • Addressing the fear nonprofits have about asking too often.
    • What to do when your board isn’t fundraising-friendly.
    • The strongest tactic for fundraising in a recession (yes, the next one is coming).
    • Using communications to engage donors.
    • How to connect with major donors and win greater support.
    • Pitfalls to avoid if you’re considering an event.
    • Why fundraising, despite its challenges, is still a noble and personally satisfying profession.

    Everyone at a Nonprofit Is a Fundraiser covers a lot of ground. The only problem is that the content is so good you’ll find yourself asking drill-down questions about details that are outside the scope of the text. But that’s a minor concern. Because the lessons in the book are large and insightful. After reading it, you’ll come away with clear, specific ideas not only about how to do fundraising but also how to think like a fundraiser.

  • 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.

  • What you need to know about GiveDirectly

    Attention executive directors! Are you stressing about overhead costs? Staying up nights wondering how to prove the impact of your programs? Tying yourself into knots over infrastructure?

    Worry no more! Now you can forget infrastructure, forget staff, forget people in the field. In fact, forget programs and services. Because now you can help people just by giving them money.

    That’s right, you just raise the money and then hand it over to the people who need it. Suddenly the headaches of running an organization are gone. Just give away money!

    Okay, enough sarcasm. You’ve probably heard about Giving Directly, the charity that gives money to people in need. It’s been a media darling lately.

    And it is a good idea … as far as it goes.

    GiveDirectly is something akin to Kiva, the microfinance charity. Kiva works because donors like thinking that they can change the world — or at least one person’s world — for a $25 gift that provides, say, a couple of chickens to a poor family. This is simple, direct, help-the-poor-help-themselves charity work. All good.

    GiveDirectly is an even more stripped-down version. They give money to people in need and let them decide how to use it. There’s no infrastructure and virtually no staff. There aren’t even any programs. This is simpler and more direct than microfinance, with the added appeal of trusting people to know best what they themselves need.

    But hold on a minute.

    Let’s say money starts going to individuals in a Kenyan village. One buys a cow. One a motorbike taxi. Another a roof for his hut. And so on. Now what? Who’s seeing the big picture? Who’s doing the planning? Who’s creating the path to sustainable economic development? Who’s seeing that charity and government are working together to create the rising tide to lift all boats?

    Giving someone the money to buy something that helps them personally may be part of the solution, but it’s not the whole solution. You can’t build a burgeoning economy and social instutions on one-cow dairy farms.

    Some in the media are suggesting that GiveDirectly is a radical new model that will change how charities operate. Radical? Yes. Interesting? Sure. Worthwhile? Absolutely. A total game-changer? Uh-uh.