Tag: appeals

It’s The Ones Who Keep Going

Steven  |  Repeat
Keep pushing forward.

You know all those big charities you know by name?  The ones raising tens and hundreds of millions of dollars?

At one point they were all raising exactly as much as you are now.

They had the same struggles you have, the same doubts, the same looming fears about year-end.

And they kept going.

Sometimes it was all they could do just to make it through the end of the year.  Sometimes they added one more small thing.  Or tried a new offer.  Or focused on a core strategy.

Your beneficiaries and your donors need what you’re doing.

Keep going.

Twelve Percent

Steven  |  Ask
Twelve.

At a conference this summer, I was asked to speak about “why and how to use direct mail.”

I began with the following statistic (from Blackbaud):

Last year the percentage of charitable giving donated through online sources was 12%.

The 12% figure was a total surprise to a significant portion of the audience.  I heard one person say, “Wait, WHAT?”

It’s easy to understand why so many people were surprised; the fundraising world is mainly populated with people under 40, and people under 40 do almost everything online.  Plus, most of the people were from smaller nonprofits so they didn’t have the context that comes from working in larger, mature fundraising programs.

If you, too, are incredulous that just 12% of funds are coming in online for most organizations, let me share some helpful thoughts for you and your organization.

  • If your organization is raising more than 12% of your revenues online, that’s fantastic, you’re ahead of the curve.  Online fundraising is growing (though not as quickly as everyone assumed it would), so it’s a strength to be getting good at raising money online.
  • If you’re doing well raising money online, it almost certainly means you could successfully raise money offline.  This will give your organization another regular, dependable stream of income.
    • Note: if you’ve tried raising money offline and failed, it most likely means the campaign wasn’t executed well, as opposed to meaning that “offline donors don’t like us.”
  • You actively want to have an online fundraising program and an offline fundraising program because they reinforce each other.  It’s a “1 + 1 = 3” situation.  An offline program reaches people who aren’t reached by email.  An online program reminds people that they forgot to give to the piece of direct mail they set down when the phone rang.    

So, what percentage of your organization’s revenues come in online?

And regardless of your percentage, we recommend developing both strong online and offline fundraising programs.  The average age of a donor in the U.S. is around 68, so you need both programs if you want to reach both today’s donors and tomorrow’s.

Your Envelope’s Job

Steven  |  Repeat
Envelope.

Say I send out 1,000 pieces of mail and you get 38 gifts back.

That gives you a 3.8% response.  Not too bad.

But I want to point out something helpful…

It’s true that 38 out of 1,000 people sent in a gift.  But it’s also true that 38 of the people who noticed the envelope and opened it responded with a gift.

It’s helpful to notice that, because you can increase the number of people who notice and then open your envelopes.  (And it’s not that hard to do.)

After all, you can’t control who is on vacation and won’t get your letter.  But you can control using a large, colorful envelope that stands out in a crowded mailbox and gets noticed.

You can’t control the post office “batch-delivering” all the nonprofit mail on one day so that your donor gets 7 appeals all at once.  But you can control writing a killer teaser that makes your donor want to open your envelope.

Your donor must notice and then open your envelope before you even have a chance of getting a gift.  And if you increase the number of recipients who notice and open your envelope, you’ll get more donations.

The ROI on the time and money you spend on your envelopes is fantastic.

This fall, with the election and the batch-delivering we’re hearing about, it’s more important than ever that your envelope get noticed and opened.  Read this post for help with your teasers, and the last half of this post for help with your envelopes. The first job of your envelope is to carry your letter. 

Then the job of your envelope is to get noticed.  Then the job of your envelope is to get opened.

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.