Tag: appeals

Spidery Handwriting and Responsibility

Steven  |  Ask
Responsibility.

The note from the donor was scrawled in spidery handwriting at the bottom of the appeal:

In case that’s hard to read, here’s what it says:

“I strongly suggest you remove this statement.  Never imply obligations to donors, or make us feel responsible for what might happen if we don’t give.”

Though I’m sorry that the letter caused the donor to feel distress, she perfectly expressed one of the reasons that fundraising is so powerful for our society:

Fundraising reminds us that we are responsible.

Each of us bears some responsibility for what happens when we give.  And each of us bears some responsibility for what happens when we don’t give.

At Better Fundraising, we believe one of the functions of fundraising is to “remind people who care that there is work that needs to be done.”

That’s not the only function of fundraising, of course.  Fundraising should show the power of beneficiaries to triumph, show how the world can be made better, and show all of us what’s possible.

So in addition to reminding people that they have responsibility, fundraising also reminds people that they are good and they have power.

But the fact remains: if what your organization is working on is important, make it visible.  Remind your donors what’s needed and what’s at stake.  (Our world isn’t very good at solving problems that it can’t see and doesn’t know about.)

You’ll get the occasional comment like the one on the letter above – because humans don’t always like being reminded that they carry responsibility.  But at the same time you’ll build an army of devoted donors who love “doing work that needs to be done” with you.

Assume Speed

Steven  |  Ask
High speed.

When sending mail and email to your donors, assume that each person reading your material is moving fast.

We might hope that donors pore over our emails, looking to deeply understand what our organization does and how we do it.  We can wish that they’ll read every word, get every nuance, and then thoughtfully decide to give a gift.

But it’s more useful to believe that each donor is moving fast, sorting the mail, already thinking about dinner, or processing email on their phone in between pickleball games.

When you assume donors are moving fast, you end up creating letters and emails that are more accessible.  You create fundraising that works for people who are moving fast and for your “true fans” who want to know more.  (Here’s a post where I explain how to do it.)

You’ll raise more from the donors you currently have, because you’ll have made it easier for them to know what’s going on and what their gift will do.

And more people will become donors because you’ve made it easier for them to know what’s going on and what their gift will do!   

I’d wager that you know from your own life how quickly you process email and the mail.  Assume your donors are the same way.  It’s a gift to them when you create fundraising that’s easy for them to understand quickly.

And it’s a gift that results in you raising more money.

Why ‘Having Access’ Isn’t a Compelling Reason to Give

Sarah Lundberg  |  Ask
Access.

There’s a phrase I see used in direct response fundraising that always has me scratching my head.

Having access.

For example: Your gift will make sure a child has access to healthy meals.

Or your gift will help a cancer patient have access to treatment. Or your donation will make sure a student has access to education.

I’m not sure why this language is so enticing to organizations, but “having access” doesn’t provide a compelling reason for a donor to give. And it’s just not language that regular people use in their everyday life.

If you put on your donor hat, here’s something to puzzle over:

Would you rather give $30 so a child has healthy meals to eat, or give $30 so a child has ACCESS to healthy meals?

Would you rather give $100 to help a cancer patient get treatment, or give $100 to help a cancer patient have ACCESS to treatment?

Would you rather give $75 to help a student get a great education, or give $75 to help a student have ACCESS to a great education?

When we start to think like a donor, giving to provide access to something… just doesn’t measure up to providing the thing itself.

So when you’re writing your next appeal or e-appeal, try writing without using the idea of “having access” to something. Your writing will be stronger, your appeal will be easier to understand, and your donors will have a more compelling reason to give.

How ‘Tactic Stacking’ Helps You Raise More Money

Steven  |  Ask
Tactics.

My last post was an introduction to the idea that donors often make decisions to give (or not to give) based on information that has nothing to do with the organization or its programs. 

When an organization first makes this realization, a whole new world is opened up.

They see that, instead of just looking for new inspirational ways to describe their work, they start using the tactics and approaches that the “Fundraisers who came before us” discovered were effective.

Examples include:

  • Matching funds – “matching funds will double your impact!”
  • A deadline – “Please send your gift by June 30th”
  • Highlighting a need that’s happening soon – “The kids start arriving at camp in just a couple weeks!”
  • A limited time opportunity – “If we don’t buy this piece of property for our new building, it’ll go up for public sale.”

The magic really starts to happen (and the money really starts to roll in) when you do what’s called “tactic stacking” – using multiple tactics at the same time.

Take a look at this paragraph, which “stacks” all four of the tactics mentioned above:

The kids will be arriving at our summer camp at the end of the month!  [NEED THAT’S HAPPENING SOON] And I’m thrilled to tell you that matching funds will double your gift – you can help send two children to camp instead of one!  [MATCHING FUNDS]  This is the only chance to send a kid to camp this year.  [LIMITED TIME OPPORTUNITY]  So please send your gift before June 30th! [DEADLINE].

See how all those tactics work together to create a compelling argument for a donor to send in a gift today?

And that’s just the copy.  Here are some of the Design tactics we could “stack on” to make this appeal even more compelling:

  • Use illustrations of kids doing fun camp activities
  • Have the reply device be designed to look like a “certificate” that’s “good for a day at camp for a child”
  • An insert that lists the daily schedule at camp, where a child has written in all the activities they are excited to do

Once you start to learn all the tactics, creating fundraising becomes an endlessly fun, creative endeavor.  You’re no longer constrained to just talking about the programs and outcomes of your organization; you’re unleashed to use human psychology and behavior science to build compelling cases for your organization.

Today, your organization is somewhere on the continuum between “we just describe our work and ask for support” and “using all the tactics all the time.”

So I’ll just ask you a simple question: what tactic or tactics could you apply to your next piece of fundraising?

A Sentence that had Nothing to Do with the Organization

Steven  |  Ask
Birthday gift.

I was once part of a large-scale test where two versions of an appeal letter were sent to equal groups of donors:

  • One group was asked to sponsor a child
  • The other group was asked to sponsor a child whose birthday was the next month

The letters were exactly the same, apart from a sentence in the “birthday version” that said, “[Child Name]’s birthday is next month, and your sponsorship will be a life-changing gift.”

The “birthday version” was the clear winner of the test – significantly more donors responded to that version; it raised more money and resulted in more children being sponsored.

In fundraising, this type of thing happens all the time: donors are moved to action by content that has nothing to do with the organization, its programs, or the quality of its work.

Maybe better said, donors don’t give only because of what the organization does or the quality of their programs.

For instance, savvy fundraisers know that a donor is more likely to give if:

  • The beneficiary’s birthday is coming up (people like birthdays)
  • If matching funds will double their gift (people like to have more of an impact)
  • If donors know their gift is urgently needed (people feel great when they solve urgent problems)
  • If the donor knows a lot of people in their neighborhood are donating (people are more likely to donate if there’s “social proof” that people like them are donating)

I think of the bullet points above as things that a donor already likes to do.  Donors like getting their money doubled, they like knowing that other people are giving, etc.  They liked doing those things before they ever heard of your organization.  And when a piece of fundraising gives them the chance to do those things, they are more likely to donate.

So, organizations that want to raise more and increase their impact will intentionally fill their letters / emails / events / in-person asks with reasons to give a gift that tap in to what donors already like to do. 

As the “birthday version” showed, just one sentence that gives donors a reason to do what they already like to do can meaningfully increase how much money you raise.

The One Exception

Steven  |  Ask
Be the exception.

Last week I wrote about “Ask Culture versus Guess Culture” in major gifts fundraising, and how Ask Culture results in raising more money and keeping more of your donors.

But after hitting publish I remembered something…

I know of one major gifts program that never asks donors to give but raises tons of money and has a high major donor retention rate.

Here’s how that program does it:

  • Every single conversation and communication contains a clear reminder of “the need” that the organization exists to serve.
    • The only exception is when a donor is being Thanked for a gift they just made.  Those calls / handwritten notes / receipt letters are full of thankfulness. 
  • The organization absolutely “reports back” to donors on successes…
  • And they always mention what they think is needed next: from “serve the people who will need help next month” to “serve the people they haven’t reached yet” or “expand the successful program” or “start a new program.”

In a nutshell, the organization is so focused on “the situation” they exist to serve that they can’t help but mention that situation and the people they haven’t been able to help yet.

The consequence is the following three things are always being reinforced:

  1. The need exists right now, today
  2. What the organization would like to do about it next
  3. That funding for “what’s next” is needed

(By the way, notice the contrast between that approach and the standard approach that focuses almost entirely on people they’ve already helped / things they’ve already done, and how they are helping today.) 

To me, there’s something very pure about this organization’s approach to major donors.  They do the “relational” parts of fundraising very well: they thank donors with real gratitude, they report back on progress made.  They are personal and build strong relationships with donors…   

But the organization always makes sure their donors are aware of the need for their work.  They don’t make the foundational mistake of believing that making donors aware of their work will inspire significant giving.

This approach isn’t for everybody – in my experience it takes incredible emotional strength to be thinking about & sharing the need so constantly.

But this case shows that donors can handle it.  And that you can succeed in major gifts fundraising without asking often or directly.  But only if you have made the need abundantly clear and that funding is needed to meet it.

Ask Culture vs Guess Culture

Steven  |  Ask
Ask culture and guess culture.

Sometimes an idea or perspective from outside the world of Fundraising can help you see the work of Fundraising more clearly. 

That’s what happened when I heard about “Ask Culture vs Guess Culture.”

Here’s a quote from when this idea first appeared online: 

In some families, you grow up with the expectation that it’s OK to ask for anything at all, but you gotta realize you might get no for an answer. This is Ask Culture.



In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you’re pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won’t even have to make the request directly; you’ll get an offer.

When an organization is operating in Guess Culture, here are three of the behaviors you see:

  • Over-stewarding of donors
  • Never asking, or Asks that aren’t direct or clear
    • Perfect example: I did a “creative review” for an organization where I looked at twelve pieces of their fundraising.  In all those pieces they never actually asked the donor to give a gift. 
  • Under-communicating out of a fear of “donor fatigue”

You’re also seeing Guess Culture at work any time you hear a Major Gifts Officer say something like, “If you do a great job of stewarding a donor, you won’t even have to ask.”

Guess Culture and Fundraising

I think the unique demands of nonprofit fundraising cause people and organizations to operate in Guess Culture more than they normally would. 

Asking for money is a vulnerable experience, and it’s hard to be vulnerable.  Many times, for many reasons, it’s emotionally easier to shower donors with stewardship and give them the occasional “opportunity” to give… instead of boldly preparing a specific offer and asking the donor to make a gift.

And of course the Guess Culture approach works sometimes.  Because donors are generous, any approach will work sometimes.

But looking at the performance of the nonprofits we’ve worked with over the years, an Ask Culture approach to major gifts fundraising (and to direct response fundraising) works better.  It results in raising more money and keeping more donors year-over-year.

Ask Culture major gifts fundraising looks like:

  • When setting up a conversation or meeting, telling the donor in advance whether you’re going to ask for money or not
  • Being willing to ask major donors for more than one gift a year
  • Asking for a specific amount
  • Asking directly with phrases like, “…so I’m asking if you’ll give a gift of $10,000”
  • After the ask is made, being silent and letting the donor speak next

Of course there will be a few “no”s.  Of course there will occasionally be an uncomfortable silence.

But you’ll get a lot more “yes”es and you’ll raise more money for your cause.

Change the Recipe, Change the Results

Steven  |  Repeat
Recipe.

When a nonprofit is first founded, its fundraising letters / emails / personal asks tend to have high response rates and high average gifts.   

But in my experience, the response rates and average gifts tend to go down as the organization grows. 

Here’s my theory to explain this…

The recipe for fundraising right after an organization is founded is remarkably simple and goes like this:

  • The founder talks about whatever “the situation” is that caused him/her to start the organization
  • They describe what needs to be done to help, and how it will help
  • They ask the donor to give a gift to fund what needs to be done

Works like crazy.

But as a nonprofit ages and expands, it develops its own programs, approach, and expertise.  It develops an organizational ego.

In a nutshell, this results in fundraising that talks more about the organization itself than it used to.  The recipe changes to:

  • They talk about the work they are already doing
  • They describe how they do that work
  • They ask the donor to give a gift to fund their ongoing work

This fundraising recipe does not raise as much money.  It lowers donors’ awareness about whatever “need” the organization exists to serve because “the situation” is rarely mentioned.  And it lowers response rates and average gifts because the fundraising is mainly focused on work that has already been completed – most of the compelling reason to give a gift today has disappeared.

I don’t enjoy this truth, but it’s still true: fundraising to individual donors that talks about “powerful work that’s already done” will cause less money to come in than talking about “powerful work that needs to be done now that the donor can help make happen.”

Organizations that stick to the original recipe will grow faster.

Individual donors tend to give because there’s work that needs to be done.  Not because the organization is already doing the work.

Do you know Sofii?

Steven  |  Ask
Sofii

If you don’t know sofii.org, you should.

It’s a website for Fundraisers, by Fundraisers.

Here’s a GREAT post to start with:

https://sofii.org/article/how-i-wrote-it-the-make-a-wish-foundations-prospect-letter

The post is about a successful donor acquisition letter written by Harvey McKinnon, a pro who I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a couple of times.

There’s a lifetime’s worth of fundraising wisdom in this post – seriously, get a cup of coffee and read it.  You’ll get so many ideas.  If your next piece of fundraising isn’t better, I’ll eat my hat. 

Sofii and Harvey – you can’t go wrong!