In Fundraising, The Words Count
In his Weekend Review of October 11, Roger snuck in a reference to a rant by fundraising copy craftsman, Bob Levy. I’ve been worrying that our weekday readers might have overlooked this nugget, so I’m touting it again.
A lot of mail is scheduled to stream into mailboxes in the next ten weeks or so, in the midst of potentially overpowering financial trauma for many of the recipients. No matter how "well-off" you think your donors might be (or at least the best ones), when they get your next letter, have no doubt, they will be hurtin’ psychologically.
So why are they going to pay any attention to your appeal? Bob’s advice might help, now more than ever. He says things like communicate "intelligently" … use "messages that genuinely uplift" … be "truth-telling." And then he urges us to convey "something of substance, placing an organization’s mission within a real-life, 21st century context … talking without hyperventilating or fear mongering." You should read Bob’s piece.
In my own words, I would say that the fundraising appeals that will work in the balance of the year (and beyond, for that matter), will be those that are:
- Personal — in tone, style and content;
- Authentic — (not hyperbolic) in how they present your need; and,
- Contextual — framing your need in a way that is mindful of today’s economic environment. You cannot ignore the elephant in the room, which is, for your donors: "I must conserve my resources for only my very highest personal priorities."
Accomplishing this is a matter of words — choosing them carefully and sensitively. I hope your copywiter is up to the challenge.
Tom
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