Tag: appeals

The Magic of an Evergreen Fundraising Offer

Sarah Lundberg  |  Ask
evergreen

As organizations begin to fundraise more, we advise them to develop what we call an “evergreen offer.”

That’s an offer that is:

  • Easy for donors and non-donors to understand,
  • Closely aligned to your main mission, and importantly…
  • Can be “seasonalized” to work during different times of the year

Here’s an example of what this looks like for an organization we’ve served for almost a decade:

$33 provides a night of safety and care for a mom and her kids

What makes this offer so helpful for the organization is that it can be made to work during every season…

In the summer: “No Mom and her children should have to live and sleep outside during this dangerous heatwave. Your $33 provides a night of safety and care to help…”

In the winter: “It’s dangerous for a mother and her children to sleep outside or in their car during our freezing nights. Your $33 provides a night of safety and care to help…”

For Thanksgiving: “Mothers and their children should not have to be homeless at Thanksgiving! You can provide a night of safety and care – plus a Thanksgiving feast – for just $33…”

Evergreen Offers usually involve a program or service that your organization runs all year long. The trick is to break up seasons into “slices” and talk about the reason the program or service is needed during that season.

Then you’re always giving donors a reason to give now – which is one of the keys to raising money in email and the mail.

Evergreen offers also allow you to raise more money with less work. The “more money” part comes from growing more and more effective at delivering the offer. You quickly get better at knowing what to mention, and what not to mention.

The “less work” part comes from your spending less time inventing new things to talk about. And you spend less time creating each piece because you’ve already created something similar and successful in the past. You have a “model” to follow that makes all subsequent fundraising easier.

If you haven’t already, brainstorm ideas for your organization’s evergreen offer. Try them in email to see which one works the best. Then try it in the mail. You, and your donors, will love what happens!

Your Organization’s Habits – Are They Good?

Steven  |  Repeat
habit

Every nonprofit’s fundraising plan is a bundle of habits.

  • Some organizations habitually send out 4 appeals, 1 per quarter.
  • Some organizations habitually call all new donors.
  • Some organizations habitually send out a Christmas card to all donors. 

Think for a second about your organization’s habits. 

The big question is whether an organization has data to tell them whether their habits are helpful… or not.

Quick example.  I once served an organization that habitually sent Christmas cards to all their donors.  They were certain the cards helped with their year-end fundraising, but they had no data to back that up.  And they’d done it for so many years that no one around the table remembered a time when they didn’t send the cards.

So we divided their donors into two random-but-equal groups.  One group received the Christmas cards and the year-end campaign.  The other group did not receive cards, and only received the year-end campaign. 

In January we looked at the results.  The response rate, average gift size, and net revenue from each group was essentially the same. 

They discovered that their habit of sending Christmas cards did not increase how much money they raised.  But it did increase expenses. 

So the following year they dropped the habit. 

Please take a quick look at your organization’s habits.  Make a list of habits that have been directed by data.  By that I mean you’ve tried at least one alternative and the alternative was measurably worse. 

Then make a list of the habits where your organization has little to no information about how an alternate approach might work.  These are the habits that are likely to be personal preferences, or passion projects of an important stakeholder, or traditions that have been handed down from the past. 

The longer the list of habits without information, the more fundraising opportunity you have.

Writing Tip: Put the Most Important Information First

Steven  |  Ask
important

There’s a writing principle you should live by:

Put the most important information first

Here’s what I mean.  Here’s a sentence from an e-appeal I edited recently:

Industrial, resource-heavy growth threatens Maryland’s fragile wetlands.

This sentence does what we were taught to do in school: explain and provide context, then make the point. 

Let’s look at it again, this time with a simple sentence diagram (apologies if you get flashbacks to middle school):

Industrial, resource-heavy growth
<           explains the context            > 

threatens Maryland’s fragile wetlands.
  <  idea that matters most to the donor  >

The problem is that in the mail and email, the end of a long sentence is less likely to be read than the beginning of a sentence.  (Look at a heat map and you’ll see how little most people read when they first look at your fundraising.)

So you want to put the most important information first, and then explain.

So how should you write the sentence above if you assume that many readers are only going to read the beginning of a sentence?  You’d write something like this:

Maryland’s fragile wetlands are threatened
  <  idea that matters most to the donor  >

by industrial, resource-heavy growth.
<           explains the context            > 

Writing in this way is one of the reasons that effective fundraising in email and the mail feels different from what your English teacher taught you. 

Additionally, this approach occasionally results in using the passive voice. This bothers people sometimes because the rule they live by is to ’never use the passive voice.’ The rule *I* live by is that, on behalf of beneficiaries, I’ll break any grammar rule I need to in order to create more effective communication.

Because beginning with the idea that matters most to the donor will make a few more people “get the message” your fundraising is sending.  That causes a few more people to give, which causes your organization to do more good.

It’s a great, free way to get a little more out of each appeal and e-appeal!

The Need Never Ends

Steven  |  Ask
problem

There’s an idea I recommend removing from your fundraising (if you use it):

Telling people that “the need never ends.”

I’m sharing this because last week I saw a text-driven billboard from an organization I support. The billboard said:

THE NEED
NEVER ENDS

I have no testing data on this particular idea or phrase. But even though the idea is 100% true, I suggest that it’s not a good idea to highlight to donors.

A core motivator for individual donors is to make a change happen. By saying that the need never ends, this organization is also guiding people’s attention on the fact that their contributions will never solve the problem – that the situation will never change.

Not exactly motivating, eh? Anyone want to make T-shirts with “Donors are Sysiphus”?!?

By focusing their donors’ attention on something that donors cannot change, the organization removes a core motivation to give.

Some gifts will come in, of course. All it takes for some people to donate is to be made aware of what’s happening. But more gifts tend to come in when fundraising gives donors reasons to give today – and “the need never ends” is not a reason to give today.

It’s important to note that there are people who are motivated by the need never ending. For instance, “subject matter experts” who think at the level of the cause yet also know that something still needs to be done today. Executive Directors and Directors of Development who know that they need to raise money every single year.

But 99% of the people driving by the billboard (or on your mailing list) don’t think like that.

So Instead…

For individual donors, use your fundraising to focus their attention onto something they can help change.

Share a need that’s happening right now, or 4 weeks from now.

This usually means narrowing the focus of the fundraising from the Cause or the Big Picture to the personal and relatable. Share a story of a person or thing that needs a little help right now. Or talk about the help that is needed over the next month.

The next time you find your fundraising talking about how big a problem is, I advise you to narrow the focus.

Donors don’t give because a problem is big; they give because a problem is solvable.

Tips on Verb Tenses in Fundraising

Steven  |  Ask
verb

There’s a little thing I do when writing fundraising that people have found helpful. 

It’s about which verb tenses to use, and when to use them.  I use it to avoid the “eternal now-ness” of fundraising speak where the donor’s support has always been happening, yet is also always needed, and of course always accomplishing great things – all at the same time. 

You can learn it in a free video that Chris Davenport and I made over at the Storytelling Conference website.

It’s less than three minutes.  And really it’s less than that because the last 20 seconds or so is me making a pitch for the Storytelling Conference because there’s a sale on right now.  

But it’s a simple little trick that, whenever I share this at a conference, people grab their pens and write it down. 

Enjoy!

Mistakes in Fundraising that Work Out Well

Steven  |  Ask
mistake

Cross posted at www.FutureFundraisingNow.com.

What do you think when you see this direct mail fundraising envelope?

mistake

A mistake? The handwriting goes across the window… that can’t be on purpose, can it?

Turns out, this was a mistake.  A miscommunication between the designer and the printer.

Big problem?

Nope.  It worked great.

It’s the kind of “mistake” that usually improves fundraising.  An odd, out-of-place, not-the-done-thing that grabs your eye and makes you cringe.

More often than not, this kind of mistake works for you, not against you.

I was once involved in a direct mail piece that included a bounce back paper placemat. Donors were asked to sign the placemat and return it with their donation.  The placemat would be put on the table at a meal the donation helped fund.  It’s a good (and proven) way to increase response to meal-focused offers.

But here’s the error: on the reply coupon, there was a quick reminder about the placemat.  Despite many layers of quality proofreading, the printed final that went to out donors said:

Please sign the enclosed placenta and return it with your donation.

Are you cringing?

Whether you are or not, the piece broke records for response. A few donors wrote to point out the bizarre error – mostly along with their donation.

Why did this mistake seemingly boost response?

Our theory: Errors grab attention. And someone who’s paying attention is likely to read for a few more seconds, and therefore a lot more likely to donate.

So when an error happens, it may not be a problem.  It might even be great!  So great you’d consider making a mistake on purpose.

Our Final Thoughts on Complaints

Steven  |  Repeat
complain

I had three main goals when putting this series together. I want organizations to:

  1. Not fear complaints
  2. Know how to respond to the complainer
  3. Have a right-sized internal reaction to complaints

But that’s not easy. Complaints are a scary subject for many organizations.

An organization doesn’t usually just “flip a switch” and become comfortable with complaints. It’s a journey with a handful of ideas on the way:

I hope it’s obvious that I’m not saying you should attempt to get complaints. It’s just that, in my experience, every organization that’s reliant on individual donors is going to get a complaint now and again.

So it’s better to have an understanding of what causes complaints, and to know how sophisticated organizations deal with complainers and their complaints.

Furthermore, as organizations grow they begin to see that the better an appeal does, the more likely it is to also generate complaints.

That’s because a great appeal or e-appeal tends to tap into peoples’ emotions. Most people will respond by sending in a gift. But the more people whose emotions you stir, the more likely you are to receive a complaint.

My hope is that organizations will realize that complaints are a cost of doing business for a growing organization. And that receiving the occasional complaint (or even five complaints) is worth it in exchange for raising more money, retaining more donors, and doing more good.

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
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints (this post)

“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

The Harmful Big Assumption

Steven  |  Report
complain

When a nonprofit is discussing a complaint that’s come in, someone invariably says…

“…and if this person complained, there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in.”

This is a big assumption. And it’s made out of fear.

It’s a completely understandable assumption. It’s the same assumption I made at the beginning of my career.

I think people naturally assume that a complainer speaks for more people than themselves because fundraising can be awkward. Fundraising makes us feel vulnerable. Many people just plain don’t like it.

But if we’re going to make the assumption that every complaint indicates that there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in, I counsel organizations to make another similar assumption: that every gift indicates that there must be a lot of other donors who feel the same way but didn’t send anything in.

After all, it’s hard to argue that only one of those assumptions is true, no?

Put it this way: if you argue that each complainer speaks for other people, you also have to argue that each giver speaks for other people.

Say a complainer “speaks for” 5 people who didn’t send a complaint in. And a giver “speaks for” 5 people who didn’t send in a gift.

If you received 2 complaints, that’s 10 people who had a complaint but didn’t send it in. If you received 50 gifts, that’s 250 people who considered making a gift but didn’t send one in.

So, what’s best for the organization: making changes to the fundraising so that the 10 donors avoid thinking about making a complaint, or making changes to the fundraising so that the 250 people who were thinking about making a gift go ahead and make a gift?

Seems obvious, right?

What’s more, there are multiple proven tactics to help people who are looking at your fundraising to go ahead and make the gift:

  • Custom reply devices on each mailing and custom landing pages for each email
  • Custom gift ask amounts for each donor
  • Ensuring your online content echoes and reinforces your offline content, so that more donors will see the same message multiple times, which increases the likelihood of them giving a gift.

Now we’re in the realm of proven tactics instead of worry.

Big Picture

Complaints are going to happen to any growing organization that’s reliant on individual donors.

When a complaint comes in, don’t let a reasonable-but-fear-based assumption harm your fundraising efforts. Don’t focus on the negative.

Instead, choose to have an abundance mindset. Move from worry to making proven improvements.

The whole goal of this series of blog posts on complaints has been to help organizations get used to complaints, because complaints are a natural part of growth, and set up a system to handle complaints with the appropriate amount of energy.

When you do this, you’ll spend less time and energy on complaints. And you can spend that time doing concrete things that will help your organization raise more money in the future.

If you’re going to make an assumption about donor behavior, also look to see if the opposite assumption is true.

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 (this post)
  8. Turning Complaints into Gifts
  9. “Friendly Fire” — Complaints from Internal Audiences
  10. Our Final Thoughts on Complaints