Tag: writing

What If Apple Advertised Like a Nonprofit?

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Smart phone ad.

Here’s a fun thought exercise for you.

What if the companies that make phones (Samsung, Apple, Motorola) had to make TV commercials selling phones using the same messaging approach that many nonprofits use?

First of all, there would be no 30-second commercials.  All the commercials would be 5 minutes long because someone at the company would say “we need to tell people everything about us before they will buy a phone from us.”

All the commercials would start by sharing what year the company was founded in.

The commercials would not talk about phones you could buy right now.  They would only talk about phones they already sold a few months ago.

Each commercial would painstakingly detail how the phone was made and list any subcontractors.  “Our previous model was so effective because we thoroughly vet our high-quality partners; the display was made by Samsung, the camera module was made by Sony, the display was made by LG, and our supply chain delivered all components to be lovingly assembled by Foxconn, our Chinese assembly partner.”

The ads would avoid naming any specific features of their phones, and would instead use concepts like “your purchase, like a pebble thrown into a pond, will cause ripples in your communicating power.”

There definitely wouldn’t be any urgency, because the CEO thinks urgency makes him look needy.

And at the end of these long commercials, the company would mention that their phones were available, but certainly not ask you to buy one today, that would be rude.

If that’s what commercials for phones were like, when a phone ad came on TV, people would switch shows or leave to go to the bathroom.

But, weirdly, that’s the approach fundraising letters take all the time!    

My hope is that this thought exercise helps people see how deeply flawed the standard nonprofit approach is.  When looked at in another context, when our fears around money and vulnerability aren’t part of the equation any longer, the standard approach just looks silly.

This blog, and Better Fundraising, have been growing for more than 10 years because our data-driven approach works far better than the standard approach.

If you’re reading this, and any of the fictional phone company approach resembled your organization’s approach, click here and say hi.  Your donors have what we call “pent up giving” and you can be raising more money from them starting next month!

Writing for TV and Writing for Fundraising

Connor Owen  |  Repeat
Editing.

Working in television would likely be a writer’s dream… and probably a nightmare. Tight deadlines.  Limited budgets.  Constant revisions.  Wait – that sounds like life in a nonprofit, too! 

Maybe you have more in common with a writer in Hollywood than you realized.  You’re both up against a deadline.  You’re both dealing with executives speaking into your copy.  So, what else could we learn from our fellow writers in Southern California?

For some television shows, after their first few episodes, there is a quick realization that they are focusing on the wrong characters.

Let me tell you two quick stories where this happened.  

First, let’s look at The West Wing.  This show was originally intended to focus on the staff who worked inside the West Wing, not the President.  Main characters were set to be the Chief of Staff, Communications Director, Press Secretary, and everyone who makes the White House work.  They did not plan to have the President as a prominent character with lots of storylines.

But something happened after the first episode.  At the tail-end of the Pilot, Martin Sheen stepped in front of the camera as the President of the United States and delivered a handful of lines.  Soon after, his role in the show grew! 

Why? 

Because the writers and producers of the show were smart enough to realize that when the President showed up, viewers loved it!  So, story lines for the supporting cast were decreased, and the President’s story lines increased.

The same is true of the show Family Ties.  Michael J. Fox’s character was supposed to be a supporting actor to the lead actors who played his parents.  But after a few episodes, executives realized that Fox was why people tuned into watch.

So they made a shift, and Family Ties became centered around Fox’s character.

Now, how does this relate to your fundraising?

Think of your programming like characters in a television show.  You likely have one or two programs you focus on (these are your lead actors).  And then you have a few other programs (or supporting actors) you feature here and there.

As you write about different programming in your fundraising, your audience responds differently.  The really smart orgs that are growing are listening to that data, just like successful television executives, writers, and producers.  They might even shift what was once a supporting actor into a lead actor role because of how well it performs!

So, as you send your appeals and newsletters, be sure you’re tracking your data to see which programs your audience loves responding to.  And if the data says you need to feature one more than another – do it!  You’ll love the results. 

PS: If a show like Family Ties missed the fact that they had a star in Michael J. Fox who needed more story lines, maybe you have a program out there that needs featured in more of your appeals and newsletters!  Follow the data, and watch your fundraising results increase!

PPS: Not tracking your data?  You could start now.  Download our proforma so that you can know exactly how every fundraising communication you send is performing, helping you raise even more money.

‘Front Load’ Key Words

Steven Screen  |  Ask
First things first!

When you think about how to capture donor attention when there are so many things competing for your donors’ attention, here’s a tactic for you: “front-load” the most important ideas for your readers or listeners.

Sketchplanations recently published the following graphic that does a brilliant job describing what “front-loading” is and how to do it.  The author is talking about writing for the web, but it’s 100% applicable to any fundraising writing that’s going to individual donors, from a direct response email to a major donor proposal…

Our donors are moving quickly, and this is a great way to get your point across more quickly.  Because it’s a non-starter to make people wade through a bunch of content to figure out what you’re talking about if you want to grow.

Front-loading applies to sentences, but it also applies to your fundraising in general.  For example, front-load the ask in your appeals in the first few paragaphs.  If you’re meeting with a major donor to thank them for their gift and report back to them, front-load the idea that you are not going to ask them for a gift today.

You’ll see the same idea expressed in my posts Three Editing Principles and Put The Most Important Information First, but it’s great to have the official name for this tactic.

Now, the next time someone asks you why you’re writing in this slightly strange way, you can tell them that you’re front-loading, that you’re placing the words with the most signal right at the start – instead of buried in the middle or at the end.

What Should Your P.S. Do?

Steven Screen  |  Ask
PS.

A thoughtful reader recently wrote in with a question.  I’ve edited it lightly for brevity:

“Talk to me about the use of postscripts in asks. We currently use the P.S. as an extension of the core ask – for example, in our next appeal the P.S. asks donors to consider becoming a monthly donor. One of your podcasts suggested the P.S. should be a reiteration of the core ask. I would love to hear more about this.”

This is a great question, and one that vexes many nonprofits. 

At one level, our answer is really simple: we recommend that the P.S. repeat/reiterate the core ask because that is the approach that, according to all the head-to-head testing that I’ve done or seen, is most likely to increase the chance the reader sends in a gift.  *

So the question becomes, “Well, why does the ‘reiterate approach’ tend to out-raise other approaches?”

Here are the core ideas that are helpful to know:

  • According to eye-tracking studies, when most people first look at a direct mail letter, they do not read it.  They scan the whole thing first.
  • Often, after they finish their scan at the end of the letter, the P.S. is the first part of the letter they actually read.  When I started doing direct mail in 1993, I was taught that for the majority of readers, the P.S. is the first part of the letter that’s read.
  • So if the P.S. is about one idea, and the person goes back to the top and starts reading the letter and finds that the letter is about a different idea, we’ve immediately caused confusion in the reader’s mind.
    • In the example where the P.S. is about becoming a monthly donor, and the rest of the letter is about whatever the need is for a single gift, then the donor might think, “Wait, I thought this was about becoming a monthly donor, but that’s not what this letter is about at all.”  Confusion increases abandonment, abandonment reduces readership, reduced readership = lower giving.
  • Finally, a good P.S. taps into the power of repetition.  Brain science shows us that when something is repeated often, we become more familiar with it and we’re more likely to believe that it’s true.  This is why the best-performing direct response fundraising is often a little repetitive – and why you want to use the P.S. to repeat the core ask that’s in the letter.

In a nutshell, you never want to give your reader a second thing to consider doing before they have fully committed to doing the first thing. 

So, keep the whole letter about whatever the letter is focused on.  Keep the headline of the reply device about whatever the letter is focused on.  Keep the action copy on the reply device about whatever the letter is focused on.  Keep the descriptions behind each giving amount about whatever the letter is focused on.

Then, only after the reader has decided to give a gift and has ticked the check box next to the amount they are going to donate, then you can give them an option to do something additional – like make their gift monthly, or send in a prayer request, or contact you about an estate gift.

To borrow from the Dos Equis advertising campaign, Stay focused, my friend.

***

* I have both written and seen P.S.’s that take other approaches, and suspect that some of them have worked great.  That’s because there are contextually dependent times when a different type of P.S. is called for.  But those times are few and far between.  The model is the model for a good reason.

Want More People Interested in Your Organization?

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Interested.

This is oversimplified, but still true…

At the beginning of a nonprofit’s fundraising journey, when deciding what its fundraising should be about, the nonprofit wonders,

“How can we describe our work to be as inspirational as possible?” 

Farther along on their fundraising journey, when deciding what its fundraising should be about, the nonprofit wonders,

“What do humans tend to be motivated by, and how can we talk about our work in a way that taps in to what motivates people?”

The second question results in creating fundraising that’s more interesting and relevant to drastically more people, which increases the amount of money the organization can raise. 

Why?  Because there aren’t that many people interested in your work itself, no matter how inspirationally you describe it.

But there are millions of people who are engaged by emotions, who want to see justice done, who want to right wrongs, and who want their gift to make a meaningful difference.  Focus your fundraising on how those elements are part of your work, and your organization becomes a lot more interesting to a lot more people.

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?

Word Pictures

Steven Screen  |  Ask
Story.

It happens all the time at nonprofits – you want to include a story in your next appeal or e-appeal to help donors understand the situation better… but you don’t have a story.

In case that ever happens to you, here’s a technique we use all the time.  I call it “telling a true story about a person you know exists but you have not met.”

Here’s an example for an organization that sends missionaries and is raising money to provide training for the missionaries. 

As I write you today, there’s a missionary who could use a little help.  Their faith is strong, their marriage is strong, but they could use a little break and a little encouragement.  That’s why I’m excited to tell you that your gift of $XX will provide a day of respite and training.

Because in the life of a missionary, there should be times of rest.  These are people who think about their calling 24/7!  And with as rapidly as today’s world is moving, it’s hard to build deep cross-cultural relationships and stay on top of the latest missionary knowledge.

Your gift will allow one person to do just that.

Imagine the relief when a missionary hears, “A generous donor has sent in a gift to help pay for your training.  And the cost for this break and trip will be paid for – it doesn’t come out of your personal budget!”

If you put yourself in a tired missionary’s shoes for a moment, I’m sure you can image tears, and relief, and joy, and wonderment.

See how there’s no traditional “story”?  But can you also see how we’ve painted a true word picture that helps the donor see the situation and what their gift will do?

Here’s the thing: you are an expert in the people or cause you’re working on.  You know the details, the circumstances, and the emotions.

So you can share details that you know are true, even though you don’t know the people themselves.

This technique is not a replacement for “a great story from the field.”  (There are details and emotions in real stories that even the best writers can’t create.)

But sometimes you don’t have a story.  And when you know your work, and you know your fundraising would be more powerful with true details, this technique is helpful.

People are More Important than Platforms

Steven Screen  |  Repeat
Online platforms.

The online fundraising platforms we’re currently using are going to change.

Think about it.  For any Fundraiser who has been fundraising online for a decade, they’ve had two dominant platforms: Facebook and Instagram.

Now podcasts, texts and TikTok are coming.

If you work in Fundraising for the next 20 years, I bet there will be three or four more platforms.

The technology changes every couple of years.  Human psychology barely changes at all.

It’s good to know the ins and outs of whatever platform you’re using now.  But what will make you an exceptional Fundraiser is knowing the ins and outs of what makes people give and then give again.

Then you’ll succeed on any platform.

***

PS — writing this post made me realize that the two channels that have the most staying power are probably the mail and email.  I suggest that’s true because mail and email are experienced by the recipient as a direct message to them.

Texts have the same feature.

If those are the three “platforms” that are going to stick around, I would prioritize getting good at them.  Plus, they have a feature that is always a benefit: they allow you to “own your list” instead of being at the mercy of the algorithm.