Awareness of the Problem > Awareness of the Work

awareness

The previous post showed how fundraisers can harness awareness and tension to raise more money.

There’s a key thing to note, and it’s worth taking a whole post to say it well…

You want awareness of the problem your organization exists to solve more than awareness of your organization’s work to solve the problem.

When a nonprofit’s fundraising creates awareness of the problem they are working on, recipients of the fundraising experience tension and are compelled to action.

Note: if causing your donors to experience tension doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, remember that tension is the source of almost all actions taken by humans:

  • If I’m having health problems because of what I eat, I experience tension with what I eat, and I take an action to eat healthier.
  • If I’m wanting a new TV, I experience tension with my current TV, and I take an action to buy a new TV.
  • If I see a family who is losing their apartment because they are caring for a daughter who is in the hospital for several months, I experience tension with that situation, and I send in a gift to help them keep their apartment.

It’s all the same thing.  This type of tension is your friend in fundraising.

So, when a nonprofit creates awareness of the problem that the organization works on, donors experience tension with that situation, and send in a gift to help solve the problem through the nonprofit.

But when a nonprofit creates awareness of the work the organization is already doing on the problem… where’s the tension?

Why would people feel tension?  It sounds like the organization has everything taken care of.  They are helping so many people!  That’s so great!

In your fundraising, make sure you’re raising the right kind of awareness.  If a nonprofit is always and only telling stories about people who have already been helped… you’re raising the less helpful kind of awareness, so you’re raising less money than you could be.

In our experience, the organizations that raise the most money and retain more of their donors have about a 2:1 ratio – they “raise awareness of the problem their organization is working on” about twice as often as they “raise awareness about the work their organization is doing.”

How to Change the World

tension

In a post called “How to change the world,” Seth Godin recently said,

All successful cultural change (books, movies, public health), has a super-simple two-step loop:

AWARENESS
TENSION
–>Loop<–

It’s easy to focus on awareness. Get the word out. Hype. Promo.

I think that’s a mistake.

Because awareness without tension is useless.

The tension is like pulling back a rubber band.

WHY would someone who becomes aware take action?

Here’s how that works in nonprofit fundraising:

  • Awareness – the nonprofit creates this.  Nonprofits make donors aware of the problem that needs to be solved, of the need that needs to be met. 
  • Tension – the donor feels this.  They feel the tension between the way the world is today and how they wish the world would be. 

Seth asks, “WHY would someone who becomes aware take action?” 

Here’s our answer for fundraising: a donor will take action when the internal tension they feel is strong enough, and when the nonprofit makes it easy for the donor to see that their gift will make a meaningful difference.

This is the successful recipe for an appeal: show the donor what’s happening in the world, and show the donor what their gift will do to solve the problem.

The nonprofit provides the awareness of the problem.  The donor provides the tension.  The result is a gift.  And the partnership between the nonprofit and the donor changes the world.

There are other pieces of communication necessary, of course.  Nonprofits should Thank their donors, and Report back to them on what their gifts accomplished.

But – importantly – do any of your fundraising pieces create awareness of the need, let the donor experience tension, and then make it easy for the donor to see the change in the world that their gift will make?

Seen, Known and Loved

need

Brené Brown says,

“What differentiates humans as a social species is the need to be seen, known, and loved.”

This is true of nonprofits, too.  Each nonprofit wants to be seen, known, and loved.

And this, my friend, is part of why effective fundraising is so hard to create.

The nonprofit itself wants to be seen, known, and loved by donors, non-donors, staff, partner organizations, the community, etc. So the nonprofit creates fundraising that helps donors see the organization, and know how the organization does its work, and shares how compassionate and effective the organization is so that donors will love the organization.

But there’s a problem.  The humans (individual donors) who receive that fundraising also want to be seen, known and loved. 

In fact, those individual humans are more interested in being seen, known and loved themselves than they are interested in seeing, knowing and loving a nonprofit.

So, remember the fundraising that the nonprofit created to make itself seen, known and loved?  It’s not going to be relevant to most donors.  It’s not going to be as engaging to the donor, and it’s not going to raise as much money.

The big idea is for nonprofits to create fundraising that sees, knows and loves their individual donors.  (With boundaries, of course.)

Because here’s the magic… 

If a nonprofit makes the generous choice to create fundraising that makes its donors feel seen, known and loved, then more donors respond with more generosity. 

If an organization can first meet their donors’ needs, then the donors are more likely to meet the organization’s needs.    

Free Resource: The GoodNewsletter

news

OK, it’s time for some good news. (This month we had a loooooong series of posts about complaints. I’m sorry? You’re welcome?)

There’s a free daily email called “GoodNewsletter” that I encourage you to subscribe to.

It has nothing to do with fundraising – it’s a daily email with a couple of stories of good things that have happened in the world.

It’s nice to have a bit of good news in my inbox every morning. Sign up here if you’re interested.

It’s a great reminder that progress is being made.

On a related note, I think the highest form of fundraising program shows donors both the needs for action and progress that’s been made (the good news). It sends out pieces of fundraising that focus on the needs and ask donors to help. It sends out pieces of fundraising that focus on the progress that was made and thanks donors. (This is why there’s both an “Ask” and a “Report” in fundraising’s Virtuous Circle.)

Because seeing only one side has negative consequences. Seeing only good news leads donors to think that the problem your organization works on isn’t particularly big or harmful.* Sounds like things are going great and no help is needed today! And seeing only bad news leads donors to think that the problem is unsolvable. Sounds like things will never get better.

So, share both.

If your organization shares both the needs and the progress, you’ll create donors who both understand the need for action now and know that their gifts (and your organization) have made a difference.

Those are the kind of donors you want. And you can create them with the right mix of messages.


* This does not apply to some organizations where “bad news” of problem they work on personally affects the donor. In other words, the donor doesn’t need to hear the “bad news” from the organization because they are living it. This happens with causes like Cancer – when a loved one has it, you never forget what it was like. Or with the environment – when you live near a place that’s been damaged, you’re constantly reminded of it. I’m convinced that’s why some organizations don’t need to share any bad news in their fundraising, yet they still succeed. And I’m convinced that if you’re at the type of organization whose “bad news” doesn’t affect any of your donors, you should share the “bad news” with them if you’d like to raise more.

Help Your Donor Imagine Herself Making A Gift

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!

Turns Out People Don’t Like to Say Hard Things

It’s hard to think, say and write things like:

If Daniel does not receive the cure in time, his eyes will deteriorate, and he will go blind.

Some marine life is dying, at this very moment, from the millions of pounds of plastics in the ocean today.

If Anitha doesn’t go to school this year, she’s likely to become a child bride.

All of those things are true. You might think they are morbid. Or that they shouldn’t be shared.

But it turns out that sharing those truths in your direct response fundraising will help you raise more, and fund more of your organization’s work.

In other words, if you say the hard things, your organization will be able to do more about those hard things.

Your fundraising should not be all about those hard things. But letting donors know what’s at stake gives them a more complete picture of what’s happening, and they react accordingly.

Even though it’s hard, say the hard things.

Closest Available Fundraiser

fundraiser

The most meaningful fundraising in the world is usually created by the “closest available fundraiser.”

Not a professional fundraiser, or even a trained fundraiser. But the person sitting in the fundraising seat at the time.

The closest available fundraiser.

Here’s the thing. There are some people – or a cause – that need help right now and your organization is the only one that can do it.

Maybe you’re the only organization that knows about the need you serve. Or you’re the only organization that is in a position to meet the need soon.

For those people, you’re their shot. There isn’t anyone else right now.

Your beneficiaries or cause don’t need you to be confident or certain or fearless. They just need you to try.

But be heartened – when you create and send out the fundraising for people or a cause that no one else is going to help, you’ve given an incredible gift. You’ve created the best (and only) fundraising in the world for them.

Repurpose the Proven

story

In a movie directed by Oliver Stone in the second half of the 1980’s, Charlie Sheen plays a young man who follows a bad father figure, then turns to follow a good father figure. Can you name the movie?

If you said Platoon, you are right. If you said Wall Street, you are right. Both movies told the same story, and both were a huge success. The primary difference was that Platoon took us into the green jungles of Viet Nam circa 1967, and Wall Street took us into the concrete jungles of Manhattan circa 1985.

Here’s my point: Wall Street premiered less than 12 months after Platoon, but no one who saw it complained, “Hey, we were told this story last year!”

That’s a quote from Roy H. Williams, one of my favorite writers. 

It’s one of those quotes that’s not about fundraising, but it’s absolutely about fundraising.

Because if you’re going to get good at fundraising, you’re going to find yourself telling the same “story” over and over again.

The beneficiary will change.  The circumstances and details will change.  But it’ll be the same “story” in the way Platoon and Wall Street are the same story.

Because when you find a particular “story” that elicits the response in your donors that you’re looking for, you want to repeat that “story.”  Again and again and again.

You’ll get tired of it.  But no one will complain and say, “Hey, we were told this story last month.”  Because a vanishingly small number of donors will notice that the “story” was the same. 

There are types of stories that work better than others.  For instance, there’s a type of story that works best for appeals and e-appeals.  There’s a type of story that works best for newsletters and “report backs.” 

Again, you or your organization might get tired of the story types that work best for you.  But don’t let your organization’s boredom with any particular story type get in the way of creating effective communications for your donors.

“Trust, then give” or “Give, then trust”?

Trust.

You know me – I’m always talking about how the “stories an organization tells itself” about fundraising have a lot to do with an organization’s success or failure.

There’s another “story” we should talk about. It’s specifically around acquiring new donors:

“We need a person to know and trust our organization before they will give a gift.”

This is true when organizations are just getting started – maybe up to a couple of hundred donors. And occasionally in the major donor context.

But the problem with that approach is that it doesn’t scale. There aren’t very many people, in the grand scheme of things, that want to take the time to get to know and learn about your organization.

So it turns out that if you want to acquire significantly more donors than you’re acquiring now, it’s a better use of time and money to learn to be effective at “just asking potential donors to give a gift” than it is to “get to know people and then asking them to give a gift.”

Important note: I should mention that this post isn’t just me philosophizing over here. It’s me attempting to summarize what I (and others) have learned watching organizations spend millions of dollars attempting to acquire new donors.

So for smaller organizations who want to acquire more new donors, ask yourself if you have the belief mentioned at the top of this post. If you do, I suggest you replace that “default” belief with this new belief:

At this moment, potential individual donors care more about our cause, and about their ability to make a difference with a gift, than they care about our organization.

So our fundraising materials should spend less time talking about our organization, and more time talking about a) the cause or issue we work on, and b) how a donor’s gift will make a difference.

If you follow this advice when creating your mass, outbound fundraising communications and marketing, you’ll acquire more new donors.

Should you think differently when having lunch with a potential major donor who was introduced to you by your Board Chair? Of course. That’s because you’re a savvy Fundraiser and you differentiate.

If you and your organizations can do the other-centered thing and focus your communications on what individual donors tend to be most interested in (instead of what you and your co-experts are most interested in), you’ll be rewarded with more donors.

And they will come to trust your organization over time.

To scale your organization, it’s not “build trust and then they’ll give.” It’s “get them to give, and then they’ll trust.”