People give to achieve a goal and reinforce their values.   Those goals and values differ based on the subconscious Identity “hat” the donor is wearing (e.g. Globalist when considering a gift to UNICEF, Conservationist when giving to The Nature Conservancy, Dog lover when giving to the local humane society).

But they aren’t really giving to your organization, they are giving through it.  The beneficiary presented in your appeal is the intended recipient.  We’re told tying giving to specific, tangible items (e.g. a blanket, food, shelter) is better than an abstract, ambiguous benefit (e.g. lifted from poverty).   Research of ours and others affirms this.

But, before I consider giving the tangible item, I consider whether my values and goals will be reinforced or furthered by supporting the beneficiary presented to me as being in need.

What happens if how that beneficiary  should be represented is the exact opposite of how we should present the (symbolic) item of help provided?

A thought experiment.   Which of these is a more congruent?

Same action.  Same task.  Differently framed goals.  Getting paid and finding food are more specific while feeding one’s family is more abstract.

One of the big determinants of whether helping someone will reinforce my (the donor) goals is the degree to which I see myself and the beneficiary as similar.  Willingness to help our “in-group” is far more likely than helping what we perceive to be “out-groups”.   Why?

Because the more similar I see the beneficiary to myself the more likely I am to see shared goals.  Shared goals makes it easier to see how my goals will be advanced and also makes it easier to take the perspective of others and experience empathy, which further contributes to helping behavior.

Therefore, one of the major goals of fundraising is to remove social distance between the donor and the beneficiary.  Removing social distance makes me more likely to see the beneficiary as similar.  And one of the better ways to do this is being more abstract and generalized in describing needs and goals of both the donor and the beneficiary to create shared purpose and commonality.

People do have innately different tendencies to view actions abstractly.   For example, some people more naturally and without prompting see the goal of voting as marking a physical ballot while others more naturally see the goal of voting as impacting democracy.  This explains, in part, why you still get donations even if you aren’t explicitly framing goals abstractly.  Some people just naturally go there.

Any number of factors can stand in the way – different Personality types have been linked to ability to see things abstractly.  Other belief structures might predominate and instill more of an “other” versus “us” view.  For example, if I believe the beneficiary contributed in some way to their predicament then I’m far less likely to help.

But, some not so new research (now almost 20 years old) shows that even for people who fit a certain profile (e.g. don’t innately think this way, are prone to stereotypes, tend to believe people get what they deserve/earn) that runs counter to seeing similarity, they too can see shared goals, but only if framed correctly.

Here’s a few Do’s and Dont’s followed by a copy example.

Don’t

• Cut to the chase. You need to tell a humanizing story that creates similarity.  The homeless person wasn’t always homeless.
• Make the beneficiary goal concrete – e.g. staying warm, feed. Note, before you freak out, this doesn’t mean you can’t reference those tangible items.  It simply means you need to link them to a higher order, more abstract goal.

Do’s

• Tell a better story. Most fundraising copy (per our Copy Optimizer work scoring up Narrative qualities) is, frankly, dreadful at storytelling.  It’s all tell, no show.
• Part of showing is painting a picture and part of creating a more abstract goal and greater similarity is having that story start back in time and come forward – i.e. the redemptive arc.
• Spend more time thinking about the abstract goal and how you’ll create similarity between the reader and the beneficiary.

Here is an example.  It scores extremely well with our Copy Optimizer tool so we objectively know it’s a good story pulling the reader in.  The Narrative Score is 10.7, which puts it on par or better than most fiction.   And the Involving Score is a solid 5.6, making it three or four times better than sector average.

You can judge whether it creates the shared sense of goals that are needed to have the reader see Harry as similar.

Harry had loved the smell of Sunday breakfast.  It meant he and his kids were at the table, together in their small but cozy apartment.  Sunday was also a rest day after six long days as a line cook.

He felt a pride and happiness that seems so distant now because it all vanished in a flash.  He’s living at Hope House now and has been for two months.  After his surgery, he began living on the streets, no warm bed and no Sunday breakfast.  His kids are now in foster care.  

Your support of us means he now gets those basic needs met and help finding a job.  His goal is the same as yours, providing for his family. 

Can you imagine such a jolt to your world?  Not able to provide for your kids?  Not able to cook them a warm meal?   

Kevin