Communicate In The Purple Zone
Yesterday, in The Most Sinister Word In Fundraising, Roger wrote about effective fundraising copywriting and — citing our esteemed colleague, Jeff Brooks — the pernicious ‘I’ word.
As he wrote: “This evil word has the negative power to transform your message into one that should be about the donor to one about you and your organization.”
Much is written about donor-centric fundraising (the only kind that works) as a philosophy and attitude, and also regarding the nitty gritty of how to communicate properly with donors.
Search The Agitator website for ‘donor-centric’ for our 73 items on the subject.
But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone present the communications aspect of being donor-centric better than Mark Phillips does in this simple graphic:
Well done, Mark … you get an Agitator raise.
Tom
3 responses to “Communicate In The Purple Zone”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Thank you sir (and to Roger). And thank you for everything you do. Together we are all stronger.
For people who don’t follow Mark’s blog, his post today is equally superb: http://www.queerideas.co.uk/my_weblog/2015/11/who-will-the-fundraising-preference-service-protect-and-who-will-actually-use-it.html. He generously shares a link to the slide deck of his IoF presentation. Food for thought for all of us, UK, US, or otherwise.
This is just perfect! I’m going to print and hang on my wall!