Q: I was wondering about the order of telling a story to a potential new funder. It seems to me (though happy to be corrected!) the key elements are broadly 1) introducing your charity 2) explaining the need 3) explaining your response to that need 4) providing a personal story 5) making a financial ask. These elements vary between the factual, emotional, negative (need) and positive (response) and so is there a natural order that will most likely lead to a positive outcome? Additionally would this order differ for different audiences eg grant giving foundations, corporate supporters, individuals? Thanks again
I wish I had a simple answer and a set-in-stone order for all fundraising pitches. Unfortunately, there are different factors at play that should determine not just the order but also the content itself.
You ask if a different order needs to be used for foundations, corporate and individual supporters. In my view, a different order and content needs to be used even within individual supporters. Let me explain.
If a supporter already has some connection to the cause, she doesn’t need to be told about the need, or the importance of the work. The content/conversation should just reflect her beliefs, those that align with the cause, and should try to show her how giving to this cause will help her fulfil who she is. In that case, the whole conversation revolves around the supporter and there’s no need for a personal story.
If the person doesn’t have strong, innate motivation for support, that’s when a personal story becomes crucial. All the elements you detail above (need, impact etc..), should be communicated through that lens. So, it’s not about describing the need first, explaining impact second and then sharing a personal story. It’s the story’s job to do both in the most engaging way there is. And that’s by “showing” the need and the impact, not “telling” it. Consider the following two examples:
Example 1:
Jake is struggling to feed his kids. Thanks to generous supporters the food bank helped Jake and families like him.
Example 2:
‘Dad, what’s for breakfast?’ Jake didn’t know what to say. The kitchen cupboards were empty. And the coins in his pocket just weren’t enough. The phone call to the food bank was hard but necessary. The response was immediate – Jake felt a weight lifted from his shoulders as he was serving fresh food to his kids.
Behavioral Science Q & A
Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]
Read Full Answer
Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]
Read Full Answer
The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]
Read Full Answer
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