Emotion Not Enough
Jerry Huntsinger is one of the best copywriters ever.
So I tremble at the thought of disagreeing with him.
But in this recent addition to his growing creative tutorial on SOFII, he applauds the emotional content and impact of a fundraising letter he shows us regarding mentally handicapped children. And indeed, the letter packs a wallop.
Then he compares this to another fundraising appeal, this one from an organization that places special needs children for adoption. By comparison, the second letter is almost sterile. Jerry suggests ways in which some passion could be introduced to the appeal.
So far, I don’t actually disagree with Jerry in his comparison of the two appeals. Nor with his suggestions for improving the second letter.
But I think I would have been more likely to respond to the second — passionless — one.
Why? Because the first letter said absolutely nothing about the program of the organization or what my donation might actually enable. It scores A+ on emotion and D- on content. And I think you need both, even when you’re addressing a previous donor, as this letter appears to be.
I can imagine the difficulties faced by the second organization, and the children and families it serves (even though I agree with Jerry that they should have been described explicitly), and that’s enough to trigger my emotional disposition to give. But I also read in their letter what they do and have accomplished. Making it much easier to follow my emotion and donate to their work.
Read the two letters and Jerry’s insights about them. Let me know which you would have been more likely to respond to.
Tom
9 responses to “Emotion Not Enough”
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
Hi Tom,
According to Stephen Pidgeon there is some evidence that women respond better to emotion and men to reason/rationale. it would be interesting to see what response you get – and also the response to the two charities concerned.
Penelope
Tom,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on which letter I would choose, and some of those reasons — the first one gives me a uneasy distrust feeling. How much does “giving these children love” cost? What skills, lessons, and interactive social situations is the first organization helping with for those children? I am caught up in the emotion, and will certainly ensure that my own behavior and that of my loved ones doesnt ever reflect that story, BUT it doesn’t move me to donate. It moves me to ask more questions before pulling out my checkbook.
In regards to the second one, I think there is alot of passion within that letter… I think the word is Ferocity! It feels like that person is standing up in front of a room full of people and talking loudly with his hands in an attempt to pull the audience’ into his passion. There is much more information about what they do and have done, and a better understanding of their financial needs. Information is power in the donation world; and #2 gives MUCH more information!
I had the same reaction when I read the first letter. So important to remember that our donors have hearts and brains. The best Fundraising efforts appeal to both.
The first letter certainly got my attention, wrenched my heart, and gave me insight into someone else’s life. Instinctively, it hard me reaching for my wallet, though I know it would likely be a one-time gift, and not a large amount. (React)
On the other hand, the second letter made me really think the issue at hand about the impact my gift could make. I would then perhaps finally give after some research, and another prompting – and it would likely be a more substantial gift/pledge. (Act)
I can safely say this is how I would react/act because it has happened so many times before.
I think these two types of letters would work fantastic as a “one-two punch” Perhaps one as a mail-out, and the other as an email follow up to the first gift to encourage monthly giving, or a second, larger gift.
Although heart wrenching, I don’t see how a donation will help Peter be more accepted by the other children. Do they support educational programming, so they use the money to hide children away in an environment where no one will ever be mean to them? There’s simply not enough measurable information for me to trust this letter. If I had the money to donate to only one of them, it would be Children Unlimited, most definitely. The first letter leaves me feeling horrible about Peter, but unsure how my $1,000 is actually going to benefit him. The story could have been told better with more information about how the money help. I did like the idea of a plain white envelope though – intriguing!
I also would be more likely to respond to the second letter. However, for me it’s not quite so emotional vs. descriptive – I work for a children’s home and the way the second letter describes their work does hit an emotional cord with me. I do think that the first letter is over-the-top with the emotion and lacking in reason, but the second letter is not lacking in emotion to me. Actually, the main thing that turns me off about both letters is the suggested giving amounts – they may be appropriate for repeat donors, but as an outsider seeing these letters for the first time, the giving amounts are way too high for me to consider contributing a first gift at even the lowest suggested level.
I personally do not like either but then I am not familiar with either organisation, but if I were a donor I were a donor I would like to be reminded of the achievement s and successes that any of their programs have achieved.
I want to donate to and be a part of success, I want to make a difference.
I do not believe that either of these letters demonstrated that and I am indeed not a fan of what I like to call “give us your money or the kid gets it” letters instead I want to know what has been done and what will my gift do!!!
I think a hybrid is what’s needed. The emotional connection of the first letter, with the practical considerations of the second – for all the reasons you and the commenters above have already given!
My reaction to the first letter is confusion. Yes, I felt very sorry for the poor boy whose heart was broken. However, a school for special children seems like a poor way to solve that particular problem — combined with that particular story, it sounds like the solution is to segregate the children who are mentally challenged. Money for the school may be well used, but it won’t solve that particular problem that is portrayed in the letter. I am much more inclined to give to the second letter, although I agree that a much more highly charged first paragraph is needed. The letter should be about the results they’ve achieved, not their history.