Let’s Hear It For Ugly
Our pal Jeff Brooks just wrote a post on ugly.
Jeff loves ugly and he disses a poor donor prospect who tweeted that he had refused to respond to an email appeal because it was poorly designed.
Here’s how Jeff defends ugly:
“That’s the way fundraising goes: Ugly works. Tacky works. Corny, embarrassing, and messy all work. In print, or in digital. And those negative labels I just put on it? They only reveal my personal aesthetic sense. Which has no bearing. How much you and I enjoy the design has no bearing on its power to motivate response.”
Adrian Salmon, who brought the example — a Democratic Party appeal — to Jeff’s attention, wrote:
“This email that looks really awful … a spammy-looking piece of junk — is actually the result of one of the most sophisticated digital fundraising campaigns ever run.”
Three points to note here:
1. There’s ‘design’ and then there’s direct response data. Hmmm … which to favor?
2. Test. Test. Test.
3. Ugly can turn beautiful. Were you deprived of fairy tales as a child?
And I’ll offer another twist.
In your organization, as you’re sitting around the conference table reviewing your latest fundraising appeal creative options, who is most likely to reject ‘ugly’ … the person holding the direct response data, or the person holding the biggest pay check?
Tom
5 responses to “Let’s Hear It For Ugly”
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
MASSIVE THANK YOU for quoting and linking to my post, I feel very honoured – and my site stats have gone through the roof! I absolutely agree with your last sentence, and in fact I gave a presentation on direct marketing fundraising to our Comms and Marketing team recently where I pointed out that a lot of potentially great fundraising is often squashed by HIPPOs (Highest Paid Person’s Opinions)
Adrian
I always say, “Test everything! Because, if you don’t test your marketing, you’ll end up with a bunch of politicians trying to get their ideas in place. If you do test your marketing, you’ll end up with a bunch of fundraisers trying to change the world. And I think the world needs more fundraisers and less politicians.”
You can quote me on that!
I just spent a day with the fundraising creative team at an elite university. They are insanely talented. Now they are adding a donor newsletter to their repertoire. So we were analyzing a bunch of lucrative examples: from Dana Farber, from the Nashville Rescue Mission, from Food for the Poor, etc. Whereupon the graphic designer burst out in honest despair, “Do they have to be so ugly?” The lead fundraiser agreed instantly, “They are. They really ARE ugly.” It was a funny moment because it recalled me to planet earth. I’d been seeing these publications as successes, not as design efforts. It made me realize that I need to redefine “ugly” and “beautiful” for my fundraiser audiences. “Ugly” is when it doesn’t make as much money as it could for the mission. And “beautiful” is when it does.
Bravo! Let’s hear it for Jeff brooks … and the Agitator too.
As you note, it’s not just email, but traditional direct mail too. How many times over the decades have clients (or more likely prospective clients since the ones who stick with us get it) chided us because our print materials are “just too plain.” They don’t seem to care how many test results (dare I say hundreds?) we can cite showing them that muted, straightforward packages win out over the colorful and flashy.
There are exceptions of course. Art museums and gardens, for example, find that beauty has a place in their marketing arsenal. Cutting-edge advocacy causes often need to push the envelope — pun intended! But the best performing social services and health charity direct mail is plain (I’m trying to avoid saying downright “ugly”) because it’s best when their packages simply frame powerful words that convey their stories and evoke passion.
Imagine a fundraising world where everyone focused on what actually works?
P.S. Sorry for being long winded – you did get me worked up!
Can you please provide some examples of “ugly” print direct mail appeals? I think definitions might differ. Why can’t “design” and “direct response data” live in the same appeal, assuming the need and call to action are equally prominent?