Fundraising Or Fund Raising?
Happy New Year!
Before The Agitator gets on with any serious heavy lifting, let’s set the record straight once and for all on one key issue.
What is the craft most Agitator readers are engaged in — fundraising or fund raising?
The answer, according to this scientific research helpfully provided by Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now (notice the clue?!) is …
Fundraising.
If no one else, I’m hoping that at least Roger takes this on board. His posts have invariably used the wrong formulation, which, but for the watchful and protective eye of this editor, would no doubt have caused him serious adverse reputational consequences over The Agitator’s lifespan.
So, thanks Jeff, you deserve the first Agitator raise of the year for getting us all on the same page in 2011.
Tom
2 responses to “Fundraising Or Fund Raising?”
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
In 1988, when I was director of a capital campaign for Northwestern University, I called the research librarian to sort out this very question for our campaign newsletter. She told me that the etymological evolution of compound words invariably progresses from two words to a hyphenated form to a compound word. In 1988, she said the word hadn’t yet progressed to common acceptance as one word, so for the adjective I should use the hyphenated version, for the noun two words, and for the verb–since I was at a university, I should use “raise funds.” Yeah, fundraiser and fundraising have achieved their destiny. But, what is the shorthand for twitter, $^?
When I read from the academia side its fundraising, the Chicago Tribune yesterday’s in a front page article online used fundraising and the Association of Fundraising Professionals uses, well, fundraising and Wikipedia uses both fundraising and fund raising. What will be the Twitter shorthand then??