Good fundraising is always disarmingly simple: Feed a baby. Stop a disease. Save a puppy.
As a professional who deeply understands the work, you may find these simple offers to be over-simplifications. You're intuitively sure that adding more of the real-world complexity to the offer will make it more effective. After all, the more they understand, the more they'll give, right?
Time and again, I hear two reasons fundraisers give for putting complex fundraising in front of donors:
- People won't give unless we give them the whole picture.
Wrong. Giving people the whole picture is a really excellent way to make sure they don't give. If you want to move people to action you've got to keep it simple.
- People's support will be in some way less whole-hearted and committed unless they have the big picture.
There's a small grain of truth to this belief, but it's more like this: People who are deeply committed have a higher likelihood of getting the big picture. It doesn't follow that those whose understanding is less deep is of such low quality that you simply don't want them.
Truth is, every donorfile has some fanatics on it -- the people who really get it, and who want the complicated insider stuff. These folks give more than average.
But the large majority of most donorfiles are "amateurs." They want to feed hungry babies; they have nothing against improving the economic output of local communities -- it's just that they don't understand that, so they don't get emotional about it, so they don't give. On average, their giving and retention are lower than the fanatics', but they are your numerous foot-soldiers, the ones who make the program viable.
If you insist on screening out the ordinary people with complex offers designed to net fanatics, your fundraising program won't be viable. You won't get enough fanatics to pay for your efforts.
Because most fanatics don't come to you fully formed that way. They "graduate" from amateur status.
So keep it simple. Nothing good comes from complex fundraising.