Tag: appeals

For Individual Donors, There Is No ‘Later’

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Act now!

When your individual donors receive your fundraising in the mail or email, they make decisions very quickly. 

Right?  An individual donor doesn’t receive a fundraising email in April, set it aside somewhere, then come back at a scheduled time to review all the fundraising emails she’s received. 

She either gives a gift in response to the email… or she doesn’t.  There is no “later.”

Contrast this to a Foundation.  Foundations receive lots of grant applications by a certain deadline, have people who are paid to read and vet the applications, and at some point later the decision makers thoughtfully ask themselves, “Should we give a gift or not?”

Here’s what this means:

  • Foundations ask themselves, “Should I give a gift or not?”
  • Individual donors ask themselves “Should I give a gift right now or not?”

And this, my friends, is why having urgency in your email and mail fundraising is so effective. 

When individual donors read fundraising with no urgency, there is no strong reason for them to give a gift “right now.”  Will you get some gifts?  Of course!  Donors are great and they love what you do.

But contrast this to a piece of fundraising that has some urgency – maybe there’s a deadline, or matching funds that expire, or a surge of people that need help.  That urgency communicates to the donor that their gift is needed now, and will make a difference soon.  This gives a donor reasons to give a gift “right now.”

If your nonprofit doesn’t have any urgency in your fundraising, it means that as you are reading this, there’s a whole group of people who love what you do but tend to not send gifts because they never need to “right now.”

Here at Better Fundraising, we tap into that group of donors (and their “pent-up giving”) again and again.  We start working with a nonprofit, we add urgency to their fundraising, and it unleashes giving from many of their donors who have been sitting on the sidelines. 

The same easy increase is available to you – but you must include urgency.

If you don’t provide donors a reason to give right now, you’ll receive fewer gifts right now.

The Gift of Not Having to Know the Details

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Less is more.

When writing appeals, it’s a natural instinct to tell individual donors more about the organization itself.

This results in copy like:

  • Founded in 1971, we’ve been…
  • Our three pillars are…
  • Our program, Uplifting Kids, addresses the needs…

All of this is educating the donor under the belief that “if our donors knew more about us, and knew how competent we are, they would give more.”

However, in 30+ years of looking at fundraising results, what I’ve seen is that appeals raise more money when they educate less.  (The two most successful appeal letters of my career don’t even mention the organization.)

Here’s my interpretation of the data: by eliminating the education, you remove content that is unimportant to a donor’s decision.  This results in appeals where more of the content is relevant, which causes increased giving. 

Put differently: when you remove the noise, the signal is stronger.

Reminder – I’m talking about communicating with individual donors and non-donors in the mail and email.  Not at an event, not at lunch with a major donor, not a tour, etc.

Here’s how I advise nonprofits to think: “It’s a generous act to simplify our mail and email fundraising for individual donors.  They don’t need to need to know the details – that’s what they have us for!  If we get a chance to interact in person or at an event, they are showing interest so it’s appropriate to go into the details.  And if they keep giving faithfully through the mail or email without ever interacting with us another way, that’s OK too.”

Remember, you’re already removing lots of details about your organization from your mail and email fundraising.  You don’t talk to donors about your accounting practices, or whether you own or rent your office space, or your approach to HR. 

So, just remove a few more details about your organization.

When you make the generous act of not requiring donors to know your organization’s details, you unlock more generosity from more donors.

The ‘Sequel Approach’ to Successful Fundraising

Steven Screen  |  Repeat
Sequel.

Two weeks ago at the Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, I shared an idea that’s challenging to some fundraisers and organizations:

Many effective appeals & campaigns are “sequels” of previous successful appeals or campaigns.

Here’s what I mean…

Say you send an appeal in March and it works great.  When it’s time to make next year’s March appeal, you make a “sequel” of the successful appeal.  You do that by looking at last year’s package.  You make any copy improvements you can, maybe replace the story with a new one, perhaps make the design a little cleaner.    

Now you have a “sequel” to a successful appeal.  And the sequel is highly likely to raise just as much money as the first appeal, if not more.

Then the following year you make another sequel, making it better yet again, and raising even more money.  And you keep making sequels until your results start to decline, or there’s some other good reason to stop (the program ends, you discover a better idea in another appeal, etc.).

I used AI to generate an image to illustrate the concept.  This is meant to be a nonprofit with their original March appeal on the left, and the two sequels they’ve made…

As you move from left to right (in other words, as you make more sequels), they get better and more interesting than the original successful appeal.  Each year’s appeal raises a bit more money than the previous year’s.  This is what getting really good at fundraising in the mail and email looks like.

Now, let’s compare that approach with the standard approach of, “We have to come up with a new theme for every appeal.”  Here’s what that looks like…

Here we’ve got three totally unique appeals, and each year’s revenue is a bit of a guessing game.

Large organizations and agencies follow the “sequel approach” because it has all sorts of advantages over the standard approach:

  • Revenue tends to grow each year
  • Revenue is more predictable
  • Lessons are learned faster
  • Sequels take less time and effort to create

And of course, when an appeal or campaign doesn’t work, there’s no sequel.  Plus it’s important to experiment every once in a while. 

The thing I don’t like about the “sequel” analogy is that in movies, the sequel usually isn’t as good as the original.  The seventh sequel of an original movie you loved probably isn’t very good. 

But the opposite is true in fundraising: the seventh “March appeal” raises tons more money than the original, because you’re so much better at it and have learned so many lessons.

Let me really bring home the benefits of this approach for you: if you have a small handful of successful sequels to use every year, it means you have a steady stream of increasing revenue plus the time to work on other things.

As you look at your fundraising calendar for 2026, what appeal or campaign can be a sequel of a successful appeal or campaign you did this year?

Scary Data Frankensteins

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Frankenstein.

When you are reviewing fundraising data, beware any time the data contains information from two different media channels or two different audiences. 

Here’s a simple example…

Say we recently completed a campaign that included one appeal letter to current donors and two e-appeals.  Here are the results:

  • 11,000 sent
  • 124 gifts
  • 1.4% response rate.

With those numbers, we can get a vague sense of whether the campaign was successful.  But I would say that the data above hides more than it illuminates because when we go to run the campaign next year we don’t know how to improve the campaign because we don’t know which parts of the campaign worked, and which parts didn’t.

But look at what happens when we can see the results for each piece of the campaign…

Direct mail appeal letter to current donors

  • 1,000 sent
  • 83 gifts
  • 8.3% response

E-appeal #1

  • 5,000 sent
  • 31 gifts
  • .62% response

E-Appeal #2

  • 5,000 sent
  • 10 gifts
  • .20% response

OK, now we’re talking.  Look at what we know now:

  • The appeal letter is a tremendous success.  An 8.3% response in direct mail is fantastic.
  • E-appeal #1 is also a success – a .62% response in email is also a success.
  • E-appeal #2 is not a success – a .2% response is too low.

Compare that to the combined data, which gave us an average response rate of 1.4%.  That number didn’t tell us anything.

But looking at the performance data for each piece enables us to do something powerful: learn that the messaging used in the appeal letter and e-appeal #1 worked great, and then apply those the next time we do this campaign and to all our future fundraising.

Additionally, by breaking out the results for each piece, over time you’ll learn your benchmarks for each audience and each channel.  This is very powerful because it helps you identify the pieces of fundraising that are effective, and those that aren’t.

But if you keep everything together, you just get a Frankenstein.

How I Learned to Give Directions

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Give directions.

Back in the 90’s I received a lesson in giving directions, and I use that lesson in fundraising every day…

I was writing and producing radio commercials for a national chain of bookstores.  At the end of each ad, there were 8 seconds to describe the location of one of their stores.  And I was responsible for writing the description of each store’s location.

When I started writing these, my instinct was to start the description in the context of the store.  This resulted in descriptions like, “you’ll find us at the NW corner of Harlow and Prescott, across from the museum, in Byron Center.”

This approach puts significant cognitive load on the listener because they must remember a lot of details (which corner? what streets? across from which landmark?) before they even know what town the store is in.  And if the town turns out to be close by, the listener then has to “go backwards” and remember the details from before. 

Thankfully my boss corrected me and said something like, “don’t start the description from the store, start the description from a place the listener knows.  Always write from the known to the unknown.”

This advice changed how I give directions, and how I write.

My revised store directions were much more helpful to people: “You’ll find us South of Grand Rapids, in Byron Center, across from the museum, on the corner of Harlow and Prescott.”

My fundraising writing was better.  Before, I tended to write from the context of the nonprofit: “We have 4 programs to help people in our community.  And all our programs take a holistic approach to addressing the needs of junior high students who are behind in math.”  Today, I start with something the listener knows or understands; “There are local junior high students who are behind in math.  Our approach is holistic, and we serve them with 4 different programs.”

Going “from the known to the unknown” makes your fundraising easier to understand quickly because it reduces the cognitive load on your readers. 

This ability to meet donors on common ground – to write fundraising that they understand that then helps them see what their gift will make possible through you, is gold.

If you do this, more people will read your fundraising.  And when more people read your fundraising, more people tend to give to your nonprofit.

Ingredients vs. Main Dishes

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Jeff Brooks blog

Today I want to point you to a fantastic blog post by Jeff Brooks over at the Moceanic blog. 

Jeff writes about one particular letter…

I’m going to show you a four-page direct mail appeal I wrote awhile back. I had an unusually strong story to work with, and I was tempted to over-focus on it by using the techniques of creative writing and journalism. Fortunately, I caught myself in time and turned it back into a fundraising message.

I’m encouraging you to read this because the letter is very good, and it’s always good to be exposed to effective fundraising.  And because, as Jeff walks you through the letter, he also shares helpful lessons about how to tell stories that move people to give. 

Give it a read!

Appeal vs Appealing

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Cry for help.

If you feel like your appeal letters and e-appeals could be raising more money, let me ask you a question.

Are you appealing for help, or are you trying to make your nonprofit appealing?

I ask because, somewhere along the way, nonprofits stopped writing appeals that actually appeal for help. 

Our industry calls these things “appeals” because that’s what they used to be — an “earnest request for aid” — a cry for help.  They were letters about a negative situation and an “appeal” for the reader to send in a gift.  (And later, in a newsletter, donors were given updates on what their gift accomplished.)

I see a LOT of appeals, and not many organizations follow the original model any longer.  Instead of saying, “Right now, people are being trafficked through our local airport, and your gift will help put a stop to it,” they write, “Our holistic approach to training airport workers has successfully interrupted the trafficking of hundreds of people, please support this inspiring work!”

Which is a shame, because appeals that are cries for help raise materially more money.

So next time you’re sending out an appeal or e-appeal, read it out loud and ask yourself: would a stranger reading this letter know exactly who needs help and how their gift will provide that help?

If not, you’re probably trying to make your organization appealing instead of appealing for help.

‘But We Don’t Actually Do the Work’

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Middleman.

Earlier this week I wrote about focusing your fundraising to individual donors on what their gift will make possible, not on how your organization does its work. 

This advice immediately causes consternation for some organizations, particularly community foundations and what we might call “middleman organizations” that raise funds primarily to help other organizations.

For instance, I recently emailed with a woman who works for a local nonprofit that a) raises money to pay for the admin costs and staffing of a national program that runs in her state, and b) that national program engages the local community to c) utilize support provided by other nonprofits. 

Local foundations and organizations like the one above will say things like, “Well, we can’t tell donors that their gift will do anything specific because we don’t do the work.  We just make it possible for other nonprofits to provide their services.” 

However, I believe community foundations and middleman organizations can absolutely tell donors that their gift will make specific services happen.

I think what happens is that these nonprofits get too caught up in the difference between “what we do” and “what we make possible.”

As I wrote last week, individual donors are much more interested in what your organization makes happen than they are in exactly how your organization makes it happen.

There are lots of instances of this being true and completely above board.  For instance, international relief & development organizations usually have local/indigenous partners who “do the work” of feeding children, providing education, digging wells, etc. 

Medical research charities often outsource significant portions of their work, from bloodwork to testing to actually working with patients. 

My recommendation: don’t artificially limit what you say in your fundraising based on a belief that donors only fund your activities (how you do your work).  In our experience, donors tend to be more motivated by the outcomes your organization creates – what your work makes possible.

Your organization can absolutely make clear asks around providing specific services, even if those services are provided by another nonprofit/entity, as long as the donor’s gift provides funding that makes those services possible.

The Amount of the Match

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Matching dollars.

Here’s a super tactical, deep-cut of a post for you.  Save or bookmark this for the next time you have a matching grant to use in email or the mail.

Specifically, this post is about how to communicate the amount of matching funds you have. 

Most pieces of fundraising always mention “there is a match” and the “amount of the match” in the same breath throughout the letter.  You don’t want to do that. 

The fact that you have a match, and the amount of the match, are two distinct pieces of information.  And one of them is far more important than the other.

Here are the rules of thumb that we try to live by…

Guiding Principles

  • It’s the match itself that makes people respond, not the amount of the match.  Therefore, the amount of the match is not a piece of information we want to over-communicate or over-emphasize.  
  • The amount of the matching funds only needs to be mentioned once in the email or letter.  Sharing the amount honors the provider of the match, and lets donors know that the funds are limited. 
  • Include the amount of the match on the landing page and/or the reply card.   Do this so that donors who don’t have the letter or email will still see that the funds are limited.  But remember that other copy points like “the donor’s gift doubles” and “what the gift will do/fund” and “the deadline” are more important for creating a response than the amount itself.

Specific Guidelines

  • Even though you should mention the match itself early and often, mention the amount of the match just once in the email or letter.
  • Specifically, mention the amount of the match the second time the match is mentioned in the body of the email or letter.
    • For example, in the context of a letter I will highlight that there is a match on the outer envelope, in the upper right corner/johnson box, and in the first three or four paragraphs of the letter.  Then, the second time the match is mentioned in the letter, I include the amount of the match.  (This usually happens 1/2 or 3/4 the way down the first page of the letter.)
  • If you want to mention the amount again on the second page, fine.  But do it at least three paragraphs before the end of the letter.  Don’t mention the amount in the PS.

Edge Cases

  • If the amount of the match is so large that it’s almost a news item of its own, mention the amount of the match more often.  For instance, say you’re a small organization and you’re given $500,000 in matching funds.  By all means, mention it more than once.
    • But remember – for the donors reading your letter or email, it’s still usually more important that “their gift will be doubled” than “how big your match is.”
  • When using email or social to promote a match, mention the amount more often when the matching funds are almost gone.  As in, “There are only $570 in matching funds left, give now to have your gift doubled!” 
  • Sometimes the amount of the match is very important to the person / Foundation / Organization that has given it.  If you need to mention that amount more often for them, no problem. 

I hope these rules of thumb help you raise even more money the next time you have a matching grant!