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.
