Category: Ask

Right Value, Wrong Place

Steven  |  Ask
food

Something happened to me in 2002 or 2003 and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

It’s foundational to our approach to fundraising.

I was part of a team serving a large, national charity you’ve likely heard of. They focus on hunger here in the US.

This organization did not like to use the word “hungry” to describe their beneficiaries. They preferred the phrase, “food insecure.”

The team I was a part of were pretty sure that asking a donor to “help a child that is food insecure” would raise less money than asking a donor to “help a child that is hungry.”

The organization allowed us to do a head-to-head test. The results came back and what we suspected was true: when the organization asked donors to help a child who is hungry (or “suffering from hunger” or something similar) they raised more money. And when they asked donors to help a child who is food insecure (or “suffering from food insecurity” or something similar) they raised less money.

The results of the test were shared with the higher-ups at the organization. The ruling came back:

“We’re going to stick with using ‘food insecurity.’ It’s more accurate. Please continue to use ‘food insecurity’ moving forward.”

I was outraged at the time. This organization was making a choice that they knew would cause them to raise less money and help fewer people! (I was also pretty young and hadn’t yet experienced that things like this happen all the time.)

Looking back, my impression is that their decision seemed to be driven by two ideas:

  1. They valued sounding professional
  2. They valued being perfectly accurate

While I agree in principle with both of those values, I’ve come to see how much those values applied in the wrong places can cause an organization to raise less and do less than it could.

On Sounding Professional

The most successful fundraising organizations concern themselves with writing and talking in a way that their donors can quickly understand. They value being understood by the audience more than they value sounding professional.

And the most successful organizations differentiate between audiences. They sound professional when they are talking to other professionals, like partner organizations, foundations, etc. And when communicating to individual donors (who aren’t professionals!) organizations make the generous choice to speak in the donor’s language, not professional language.

On Being Perfectly Accurate

The most successful fundraising organizations tell stories and use language that is representative, not perfect. They know that being perfectly accurate is for experts and professionals – and they know that individual donors are not experts or professionals.

It’s true that “food insecurity” is a more accurate description of a host of scenarios that describe the families this organization helps. It’s also true that “hungry” is an accurate description of one of the most common scenarios that describes the families that this organization helps.

“Hungry” is perfectly legitimate. It’s just not as complete as the organization’s experts would like to be.

Their insistence on accuracy over understandability cost them revenue and impact.

Interesting sidenote to writers: the “hungry vs. food insecurity” conflict is an example of the weird instances when being more accurate can make a piece of communication less clear.

Inclusive, Not Exclusive

At Better Fundraising we help organizations see how positive organizational values like “sounding professional” and “accuracy” can accidentally cause them to create fundraising that’s exclusive.

And we work with them to make their fundraising more inclusive.

When an organization makes its fundraising more inclusive it’s often an uncomfortable process. You have to say things differently than you’re used to. You have to say different things altogether. You even format your communications differently!

But when organizations keep their beneficiaries in mind, it’s not a particularly hard process. And it’s incredibly rewarding when more money starts coming in, from a more inclusive group of donors, and more good gets done.

From Higher Ground to Common Ground

Steven  |  Ask
ground

Most nonprofits have a “higher ground” understanding of their work and their cause. 

And they should!  They are experts.  They understand the cause they are working on, and they understand the complexities of what needs to be done.  They’ve built programs that are effective.  Their expertise makes them good at what they do. 

But when organizations create fundraising that invites individual donors to join the organization on its higher ground – instead of creating fundraising that meets donors on shared common ground – they put barriers between their donors and giving.

They make their fundraising exclusive.

The hallmarks of higher ground fundraising are things like:

  • Spending more time explaining the process the organization uses (your programs, or a particular approach) instead of the change in the world that the process makes possible…
  • Focusing more on the organization itself, and less on the cause or beneficiaries…
  • Sharing statistics to illustrate the size of the need or the scope of the organization’s work…
  • Educating the donor about everything that the organization does, rather than focusing on what donors tend to be most interested in…
  • All while using the organization or sector’s jargon to sound professional.

It’s like higher ground fundraising requires the donor to know about the organization in order for them to help the beneficiaries.

Two Problems

Higher Ground fundraising causes two problems.

First, it raises less money.  Every one of the bullets above, in our experience, causes individual donors to give less.  Individual donors tend to be more interested in what’s happening with the cause or beneficiaries today, and the change that the donor’s gift will make (or has made).  Individual donors tend to be less interested in the organization itself.

The bulleted points above are highly relevant to staff, organizational partners, grant-funding organizations, etc.  But they aren’t as relevant to individual donors.  Hence the old phrase, “Individual donors give through organizations, not to organizations.”

Second, the “higher ground” approach results in exclusive fundraising.  It creates a filter where the people likely to donate are the people who are willing to put in the time, the people who are willing to learn about the organization’s approach, and the people who are willing to speak the way the organization speaks.

Each of these is a barrier that some people will not cross.

From Higher Ground to Common Ground

Do the hard work to make your fundraising simple and inclusive.  Have a good offer.  Create fundraising for individual donors that any person who cares about your beneficiaries, at any level of understanding, at any reading level, will find relevant.

This means consciously deciding to leave the high ground.  It means you’ll have to defend your fundraising from internal audiences who love the high ground and want everyone to join them there.

Here’s why: there are a LOT of people out there who care about your beneficiaries and would like to give a gift to help.  There are far fewer people out there who are willing to wade through an education in your work before they can give a gift.

So if your communication and fundraising are always on the higher ground – and inviting donors to join you there – you will remain smaller than you could be.  You will remain doing less than you could be.

If your communication and fundraising are aimed at the common ground you share with donors, you will raise more money and have a larger impact.

In fundraising, the high ground is lonely.

“Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences

Steven  |  Ask
complain

Previously we’ve been focused on complaints from external audiences: donors and the occasional non-donor.

Today it’s time to talk about friendly fire: complaints from internal audiences. 

I’m using the term “complaints” as a catch-all for actual complaints and internal feedback/suggested changes like, “I don’t like this part because…” and “We can’t say that because…”

Just like complaints from external audiences, complaints from internal audiences happen for lots of different reasons. 

Let’s look at some common reasons Fundraisers receive complaints from internal stakeholders.  (In case it’s helpful, at the bottom of the post I’ve provided the beginning of a response to each complaint.)

Reasons for complaints:

  1. The fundraising letter or email “doesn’t sound like us”
  2. The fundraising shares a situation where a beneficiary needs help
  3. The fundraising shares a situation where the organization needs help
  4. The fundraising seems overly simplistic
  5. The fundraising only shares part of a beneficiary’s story, not all of it
  6. The fundraising only shares some of what the organization does
  7. The fundraising lacks data and statistics
  8. The fundraising does not talk about the quality or effectiveness of our programs

Complaints from internal audiences are complex because they come from stakeholders who wish for the fundraising to succeed, and they are actively trying to help.

However, they are also coming from people who often don’t have the domain knowledge about fundraising to individual donors to know what’s likely to work best, nor do they have the time to learn.  To make things even more difficult, what works best in fundraising often appears counter-intuitive

Add those things together and – even though everyone has good intentions – of course you get conflict and tension.

There is no easy way to help internal audiences begin to understand.  It usually takes a long-term approach.  And a real generosity of spirit, because you’re occasionally challenging peoples’ core values.

First – help internal audiences understand that the fundraising they are providing feedback on is purposefully created to be inclusive in order to grow the organization and its impact.  All the complaints above are made about fundraising that is intentionally crafted to be quickly understood by non-experts.   Almost by definition, fundraising materials that are created ‘to be quickly understood by non experts’ will not be attractive or motivational to internal experts.  Beginning the conversation with an internal stakeholder by showing them how the fundraising is created to be inclusive is successful because it appeals to a value the stakeholder has, instead of telling the stakeholder that they are incorrect and then asking them to learn a whole new way of thinking.

Second – warm, long-term fundraising education is needed.  Work with Board and program staff for an hour, every quarter, for at least two years.  Share what the experts share.  Teach the reasons behind the tactics (like this, for example).  Share stories you heard at conferences, and test results shared by experts. 

As with external complaints, there will always be internal complaints.  In my experience the organizations that live successfully in this tension allow comments on fundraising by anyone, and all comments are responded to.  But only a select few people (less than five) have final say about what’s included and what isn’t.

***

PS — The following is in no way meant to be comprehensive, but here are a few quick thoughts to have at the ready when one of these complaints comes in… 

  1. The fundraising letter or email “doesn’t sound like us”
    • In direct response fundraising, “directness” and “clarity of communication” give you a better chance at success that any particular voice.
  2. The fundraising shares a situation where a beneficiary needs help
    • One of the purposes of nonprofits is to bring awareness to the public of the need that exists.  If we only share successes, we are accidentally hiding the need.  Because some donors are motivated by need, and some donors are motivated by success, if we never mention need we are reducing how much money we can raise and how much good we can do.
  3. The fundraising shares a situation where the organization needs help
    • People understand that we are a nonprofit and that we need help sometimes.  If we never share that we need help, one of the consequences is that it sounds like we’re “taking care of everything” and less funding will come in.  It is good to be vulnerable.
  4. The fundraising seems overly simplistic
  5. The fundraising only shares part of a beneficiary’s story, not all of it
    • Staff and Board members are experts in our work, plus they have the time and interest to know and understand the whole picture.   Most of our donors and readers are non-experts who only look at our fundraising for a few moments.  If we require them to know the whole story before they donate, we’ve put up a barrier to them making a donation.
  6. The fundraising only shares some of what the organization does
    • Individual donors tend to have different values than foundations or grantors.  They are less interested in “all of our work” and tend to be more interested in “one part of our work.”  So our direct response fundraising to individual donors focuses on the parts of our work that they are most interested in. 
  7. The fundraising lacks data and statistics
    • Data and statistics are valuable to experts who have the context to quickly understand them.  The vast majority of individual donors don’t have the knowledge and expertise that we have.  That’s why a compelling story about a beneficiary is more likely to make an impact on a donor than a statistic.
  8. The fundraising does not talk about the quality or effectiveness of our programs
    • As a rule, fundraisers have found that individual donors are more likely to give gifts when their emotions are touched, as opposed to when they are told that an organization’s programs are effective.  (This is in contrast to Foundations or Grantors, who rightly pay lots of attention to the quality of an organization’s programs.)  So our fundraising to individual donors is purposely designed to engage a donor’s emotions more than it’s designed to communicate that our programs are effective.

***

PPS — I should mention that there are more and more people in the nonprofit world who do not like fundraising at all.  They believe that organizations should not have to fundraise. 

As you might imagine, people with this belief tend to dislike almost everything about fundraising because the whole operation offends them.  They can find something to change or complain about in any piece of fundraising.  Your organization could win a big award for having compassionate and effective fundraising… and a person with this belief would criticize the practice of giving out awards for fundraising.

While I sympathize with some of their thinking, I try to keep them as far away from the creation and evaluation of fundraising as possible. 

Here’s why, and it’s important: in my experience, people who do not like fundraising (and/or believe that it shouldn’t have to exist) tend to desire and create fundraising for the world they would like to be living in.

And fundraising that’s created for any world other than the world that donors are living in will not work very well. 

So, if they are working on your fundraising, the changes they will make will tend to make your fundraising raise less money. 

But what can you do about this?  Frankly, you have to remove them from the creation and evaluation of fundraising.

To illustrate, say you’re at a nonprofit that has two main programs, Program A and Program B.  If there’s a person on Program A who has a philosophical difference about how Program B’s work is done, that person is not invited to participate in program B’s activities.  That person should be valued and celebrated for their work on Program A.  They can be incredibly effective.  But they don’t help Program B do its thing so they aren’t invited to help.

In the same way, if there’s a person on a nonprofit’s team that has a philosophical difference about how the Fundraising team’s work is done, that person is not invited to participate in Fundraising’s activities. 

Easy for me to say – I’m a consultant.  I don’t have to deal with the friction and personal conflict this can cause.  But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out how this situation causes organizations to create less effective fundraising and achieve less of their mission work.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences (this post)
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

Turning Complaints into Gifts

Steven  |  Ask
complain

In my experience, about 2 out of 5 people who complain about a piece of fundraising will give a gift immediately after complaining.

You read that correctly.

Here’s what it looks like…

  • If the complainer can be spoken to in person or on the phone, and…
  • The staff member does a good job listening & asking questions, and…
  • The staff member gently asserts that what the donor read in the fundraising was true and that the donor’s gift will make a real difference…
  • Then about 2 out of 5 complainers will make a gift on the spot.

This makes perfect sense if you think about complaints the way I do. (Note: I’m talking about complaints caused by the content of a piece of fundraising. I am not talking about complaints caused by poor data or mistakes, or generic complaints like “too many organizations ask me for money!”)

A high-performing appeal or e-appeal tends to tap into peoples’ emotions. It reveals tensions donors hold between the way the world is and the way they would like the world to be. Most donors respond to that tension by sending in a gift.

But some donors respond to the tension by sending in a complaint. (There’s no blame or shame here, by the way. Who among us has never said or written something they regretted while experiencing tension?!?)

So when a complainer gets to speak to a compassionate staff member who really listens to their complaint… who commiserates with the complainer about the situation… and who confirms that what was in the fundraising was true and that the donor can help by making a gift… gifts happen.

Not every time. But more often than you’d think.

In these conversations, many donors will even bring up making a gift without being prompted. Many times in my career I’ve had organizations share stories about donors who send in a note complaining about how a piece of fundraising made them feel… and include a gift to help.

Complaints and gifts are often more closely related than we think. They are both responses to tension.

Read the series:

  1. Getting Used to Complaints
  2. Outline for How to Respond to a Complaint
  3. Not All Complaints are Equal
  4. Natural, But Not Productive
  5. The Two Times Smaller Orgs Get More Complaints
  6. So. Many. Reasons. To. Complain.
  7. The Harmful Big Assumption
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts (this post)
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

The Big Shift

Steven  |  Ask
shift

When most organizations write an appeal letter, they believe that the letter needs to convince the donor to support the organization. 

That approach results in appeals that don’t raise as much as they could. 

There’s a simple shift in thinking that results in appeals, e-appeals and newsletters that raise more money…

The Big Shift

The “shift” is this: moving from “trying to get the reader to support our organization” to “trying to get the reader to do one powerful thing for one beneficiary.”

That’s the Big Shift.

And when you write a letter that asks your reader to do one powerful thing for one beneficiary, you end up with a letter that raises more money.

It raises more money for a host of reasons, but here’s the main one: you’ve asked your donor to do something easier.  And when you ask your donors to do something easier (as opposed to something harder) you get more gifts.

Because asking a donor to support your organization is a Big Ask.  It means supporting your vision, your strategy, your cause, your accounting, your staffing structure, your… everything.

That’s a Big Ask because it asks your donor to do a lot.  That’s fine when you’re talking to a Foundation, or submitting a long application for a grant.

But not when you’re doing direct response fundraising and you have your donor’s attention for a few seconds.

You want to make it easier for them to say “yes,” not harder.  You need to make the shift.

To make this happen, customize the “one meaningful thing” for your organization.  Maybe it’s moving a piece of legislation forward by one small step.  Maybe it’s giving one person the tools they need to advocate for your cause.  Maybe it’s making the experience of a cancer patient just a little bit easier. 

You get the idea.

When you ask for something smaller, you’ll get more yesses.  And you’ll get more second yesses and third yesses.  Then you’ll raise more money. 

What Happens Next

Here’s what happens when you internalize this shift…

Your appeal letters become easier to write.  Because rather than trying to convince them to support your whole organization, you’re just trying to convince them to do one thing for one beneficiary. 

And you raise more money.  It’s a proven approach.

Pushback

As you make the Big Shift, you’ll notice something.

When you write appeals, you’ll find yourself (out of habit) inserting boilerplate copy about your organization – those phrases you’ve always used in the past.

And you immediately notice that those boilerplate phrases make your letter less interesting and less powerful. 

You’ll start to see how the way you used to communicate was boring to everyone but insiders and core donors. 

Additionally, when you circulate a draft of a letter that has made the shift, some well-meaning person will say “But we also have to mention our program that does X…”  And someone else will say, “We need to add a couple paragraphs about how effective we are…”

And you will see how neither of those things make your letter more likely to convince a donor to do one meaningful thing for one beneficiary. 

The Big Fear

The big fear that organizations tend to have around this approach is this: if I ask for something smaller, will my larger donors start giving smaller gifts?

In my experience (27 years and counting) this doesn’t happen.  In fact, what’s more likely to happen is that you’ll start getting second gifts from your major donors – gifts that are in addition to what they normally give!

The Leap

The “big shift” is one of the shifts in thinking that helps organizations make “the leap” to the next level of fundraising success. 

It helps them create fundraising that is attractive to more people than just insiders and core donors.  It helps them create fundraising that acquires more new donors.  It helps them grow.

The Time to Shift is Now

I hope you and your organization have made the Big Shift.  I believe in the extraordinary generosity of donors – we’ve seen it this year more than ever.  But I also believe this is going to be a competitive fundraising environment for at least the next several months.

Making it easier for your donors to say “yes” is a tool – a way of thinking – you should use to fund your mission.  So make the “big shift” and start raising more money!  

This post was originally published on October 27, 2020.

The Trend in Fundraising I’m Worried About

Steven  |  Ask
need

I saw a lot of fundraising at year-end.

Halfway through December I began to notice a trend:

Almost none of the year-end fundraising mentioned that any help was needed.

Specifically, I noticed two things:

  • The fundraising did not mention that the organization needed any help. It sounded like the organizations were helping everybody they came across and that everything was going great.
  • The fundraising did not mention that the beneficiaries or cause needed any help. It sounded like everyone was being helped and all the problems had been solved.

I don’t know if that’s a big trend. It’s just what I saw in the fundraising I received from organizations that my wife and I donate to that I’m not connected to.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been doing direct response fundraising for so long. Maybe it’s because I’ve watched so many organizations start raising more money immediately when they start saying that they need help. Maybe it’s because in all the testing I’ve done or been a part of, “sharing a need that the donor can help meet” is clearly one of the biggest keys to success.

But it just seems deeply weird that, during the biggest season of giving, all these nonprofits are communicating to their donors that everything is going great.

During the time of year when more people are going to read an organization’s fundraising than any other time, the donors are told that everything is going great. It’s implied that the donor’s help isn’t really needed today.

Talk about a missed opportunity!

So, if your organization’s year-end fundraising didn’t raise as much as you would have liked, review your appeals/emails/major donor asks. Check to see if:

  • Your fundraising told the donor that their help is needed?
  • Your fundraising told the donor that your beneficiaries or cause need help?

If neither of those two ideas are present in your year-end fundraising, add them in next year and you’ll raise more money.

And if you want to raise more money all year long, add them any time you’re Asking for support.

Not All “Awareness” Is Created Equal

Steven  |  Ask
Awareness.

Many nonprofits try to increase “awareness” in order to increase the number of new individual donors to their organization.

But not all “awareness” is created equal.

I’ve noticed that there are five distinct types of awareness – and that a couple of the types are far more effective at causing new people to donate.

Type #5 — Awareness your organization exists

This type of awareness comes when potential donors see an organization’s name and logo. It results in very little action and is the least effective form of awareness.

(My basic rule is to never, ever spend money for this type of awareness. For small organizations, even when it’s “free” it’s not worth the time it takes because there are so many more effective ways an organization could be spending its time.)

Type #4 — Awareness of the work your organization is doing

This type of awareness is a little better. Because potential donors see the type of work an organization is doing, the people who are passionate about that work or your beneficiaries are interested.

However, because the focus is on work the organization is already doing, it doesn’t sound like any help is needed. When it doesn’t sound like any help is needed now, fewer people give.

And notice: the person who is now aware has not been asked to give a gift. The organization is completely reliant on the person thinking of giving a gift, seeking out the organization, and then giving a gift. So the chances of them taking action are extremely low.

Type #3 — Awareness of the work that your organization is doing and the person is asked to make a gift to help now

Now things are getting interesting. The person who has just been made aware of what an organization is doing is asked to give a gift. Simply by asking people to give a gift, you’ll increase the number of people who will give.

However, this still won’t produce a lot of gifts, because the focus is on the work the organization is already doing.

Type #2 — Awareness of the problem that your organization works on

This type of awareness usually happens when the media share stories about the problem an organization works on. Think about a news story about the lack of books for local children to read, or a typhoon overseas, or a wetland that’s going to be turned into a shopping mall.

Suddenly, a LOT of people are aware of the problem. And anyone whose heart is touched by the “problem” is emotionally interested in giving a gift to help. Many of those folks will look for organizations that work on that problem and make a gift.

For example, say there’s a story on local news about how children in the area don’t have enough books to read. In that scenario, the local library will receive unsolicited donations from new donors.

Type #1 — Awareness of the problem that your organization works on and the person is asked to make a gift to help now

This is the most effective type of awareness. A potential donor is suddenly aware of a problem that they care about, and in the same moment is asked to give a gift to help.

This type of awareness is reliably the most effective at causing new donors to give donations.

The most successful donor acquisition campaigns are engineered to create this type of awareness:

  • The organization purchases (or earns) people’s attention by buying direct mail lists, Facebook ads, radiothons, half-hour TV shows, etc.
  • They use that attention to make readers / watchers / listeners aware that there’s a problem happening now
  • They then ask the reader / watcher / listener to give a gift to help now.

When you create that magic combination – that a person is aware of the problem and is asked to give a gift to help solve the problem – that’s when you have the biggest successes in acquiring new donors.

Awareness without an Ask is almost always a waste of time and resources.

If you’re a smaller organization, think about this list the next time your organization is asked to consider an idea to “increase awareness.” If you’re going to spend money and/or time, make sure it’s on the types of awareness that are effective at getting new donors.

Help Your Donor Imagine Herself Making A Gift

Steven  |  Ask
imagine

This year for the holidays I’m sharing the thinking and stories behind my fundraising posts that got the most reactions on social media.

Here’s #7, #6, #5 and #4.

As we get closer to Christmas, here’s #3…

In direct response, ask donors to do something that’s doable by 1 donor. “Will you provide 1 new library book” will work better than “will you provide new library books to local children.”

Big Idea: if your donor can imagine herself giving a gift, and imagine that her gift will do what you say it will do, she’s more likely to give you a gift.

Say you’re a local library and you’re raising money to buy new children’s books. You write a letter to your donor telling her that her gift of $20 will provide one new library book.

It is EASY for your donor to imagine herself doing that. She can afford $20, so it’s easy for her to imagine herself giving that much. And $20 seems like it’s about what a library book might cost. And the organization is a library, so of course they are going to buy the books.

In that scenario, it was easy for the donor to imagine herself giving a gift. And it was easy for her to imagine that her gift would do what the organization said it would: provide one new library book.

Great, no problem, a gift is on the way!

But now, say you’re a local library and you’re raising money to buy new children’s books. You write a letter to your donor telling her that her gift will provide new library books.

It’s harder for a donor to imagine herself doing that. She doesn’t know how much one book costs, so she doesn’t know how much to give. And she knows that she can’t give enough to provide books for all of the local children, so how much help will she really be providing, anyway?

In that scenario, it’s harder for the donor to imagine herself giving a gift. She doesn’t know how much to give, and doesn’t specifically know what it will accomplish.

When it’s harder for a donor to imagine herself giving you a gift, you receive fewer gifts.

Plus, there’s another reason that asking donors to do one small thing (like providing a library book) works so well: it gives the donor the chance to completely solve one problem.

When a donor is asked to give one book, she can give a gift and solve that problem. She did what she was asked to do. She feels great.

But what if a donor is asked to “provide library books for all the local children”? The donor knows that unless she gives a massive gift, she won’t solve that problem.

In general, most individual donors prefer to feel like they’ve “solved a problem” more than “being part of the solution.”

Will you raise money either way? Of course. Donors are generous, and we live in a fundraising-friendly world.

But you’ll tend to raise more money if you give your donor a smaller problem that she can easily, completely solve.

The Next Question Everyone Asks

The next question everyone asks is whether all the donors (even the majors) will only give enough to “pay for one book.”

The short answer is no. Donors tend to give at the levels they are already giving at. And if the gift asks on your reply card are customized based on each donor’s giving history, then they will likely give the same or more than they gave last time.

What To Do

So in your fundraising for 2023, pay special attention to how you describe what your donor’s gift will accomplish. If you give her problems that are easy to solve and easy to say “yes” to, you’ll raise more money.

Think of it this way: don’t ask your donor to fund your organization’s mission. Instead, break up your mission into small “units” and ask your donor to fund one unit.

You’ll lower the barrier of entry for your donors. You’ll make it easier for them to imagine giving you a gift. You’ll raise more money. By breaking your mission down into smaller units, you’ll fund more of it!

There’s a Scientific Case for Two Spaces After Sentences

Steven  |  Ask
spaces

This year for the holidays I’m sharing the thinking and stories behind my fundraising posts that got the most reactions on social media.

Here’s #7, #6 and #5.

For today, here’s #4…

Using two spaces between sentences is a small, donor-centered bet; it’s quantifiably easier for people to read & more familiar to older donors. Regardless of personal preference, if using two spaces helps more people read your fundraising, isn’t that a bet worth making?

I don’t share this thought because I’m pedantic about punctuation. (I’m agnostic on this issue.)

The latest study I’m aware of showed a mild 3% increase in reading speed when there were two spaces after sentences opposed to one space. It wasn’t a big study. And it used a mono-spaced font (which slightly muddies the water, in my view).

My point is to call attention to the way we Fundraisers make decisions about the fundraising we produce.

The most effective direct response fundraising tends to be made for our donors, not for internal audiences. It needs to attract their attention, not ours. It works best if it’s in their language, and doesn’t use our professional phrasing and jargon. It needs to focus on the “mission match” between the donor and the organization, not on the organization itself.

So. If most donors are old (the average age of a donor in the U.S. is about 65)… and most donors grew up on text that had two spaces between sentences… and there’s data that says that having two spaces between sentences will help a donor read a little faster… and reading more of your fundraising results in more people giving… doesn’t it seem like a good little bet to put two spaces between sentences in our fundraising letters?

Will it make a massive difference? Almost certainly not.

And 20 years from now, when today’s younger donors enter their prime giving years, I bet it will be a good little bet to have one space between sentences.

The Big Idea is that Fundraisers make a hundred little decisions each time they create a piece of fundraising.

And if you get in the habit of making each of those little decisions with donors in mind, you create fundraising that’s more relevant to donors and you absolutely raise more money.