Future Fundraising Now

Here's to ending the year on the right note

They worked so hard. Everyone was at their best, well-practiced and in sync. Everyone had gone well, really well, and now the big finish was upon them. Everyone was soaring...

And then, one tiny thing went ever-so-slightly wrong:

(Or view hear on YouTube.)

Here's my wish that this doesn't happen to your organization as 2021 comes to a close.

And, if it does, I hope you recover as well as this group did!

Happy New Year!

Realistic fundraisers: optimistic or pessimistic?

Here's a question, asked at the Better Fundraising Blog, might seem like an odd question for a nonprofit organization: Optimistic or Pessimistic?

But the answer is important:

If an organization is pessimistic, you think “we don’t want to overwhelm our donors” so you don’t send a second year-end appeal or follow-up emails. Because of this, all the people who didn’t see your first appeal, and all the people who might otherwise give you another gift, don’t get the chance.

But an optimistic organization my think, "Our donors know our work is important, and they love to give." So you'll make sure they hear from you and get every chance to donate.

Pessimism shoots you in the foot, over and over again.

Pessimism caused thousands of organizations to go silent during the pandemic. Donors had almost no way to support them during the crisis of a lifetime, while the optimistic donors raised record levels of funding.

Pessimism has led many fundraisers to decide for donors that they no longer want direct mail (or email, or long messages, or clear offers ... or any number of things that work) so they scrape by with low response and disconnected donors.

Pessimism makes many fundraisers over-think themselves into inaction, because they can so vividly imagine unlikely doomsday scenarios in their fundraising.

Sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes you get whacked over the head seemingly from nowhere. It happens. But things also go right.

Choose optimism. You'll raise a lot more money. It's more fun, too.

How to master the fundraising lift note

Lift Monday: A series about the art and science of "Lifts" in direct mail fundraising.

The "classic" lift piece in direct mail is the lift note. First pioneered in commercial direct mail, it became common in fundraising direct mail because it works. Common experience is that a lift note can improve response between 5% and 25%.

The main purpose of a lift note is to increase the reader's connection and interest in the offer. It can do this a number of different ways:

• An endorsement from a third party or even someone else at your organization.
  
• Focus on something especially important about the offer.
  
• Further "evidence" about the offer, like an eyewitness of the situation.
  
• Overcoming potential objections.
  

Here are some of the common characteristics of fundraising lift notes:

1. It's from someone other than the letter signer. There are a lot of possibilities:

• It could be from someone else at your organization who is even closer to the situation than the letter signer.
  
• Someone helped by the organization talking about the need for help.
  
• A celebrity or expert backing up the claims of the main letter.
  
• A donor on why they donate.
  

2. It's shorter than the letter. Commonly just one side of one smaller piece of paper.

3. It looks different from the letter. Different stock, different (or no) letterhead. Different font (maybe even handwritten).

These are not rules. They're not even "best practices." They're "good practices" that have been shown to work.

Here's an example. It's in a direct mail piece sent by the Connecticut Forest & Park Association. (CFPA). The appeal is about preserving forest lands, and focuses on the blue-spotted salamander, an indicator species in the forest.

The lift note is from "Sal," a blue-spotted salamander, an indicator species for the woodland ecosystem:

Read the other Lift Monday posts

The biggest fundraising failure I've ever seen -- and what you can learn from it

Let me tell you about the most spectacular direct mail fundraising failure I've ever been associated with.

I think you'll enjoy it (because schadenfreude), but you'll also learn a thing or two. I'll try to tell it in a way that will disguise the identity of various guilty and innocent parties...

Once upon a time, a client of mine -- an international relief organization -- hired a Brilliant Consultant who owned some kind of secret sauce that was going to transform their fundraising program. This was long enough ago that this amazing solution had nothing to do with the Internet. It was all about doing direct mail in a new and better way.

The Brilliant Consultant (henceforth to be called "BC") was not an expert in either fundraising or direct response marketing. But that didn't matter, because he was an expert in Psychology.

BC took a look at our direct mail acquisition program, which performed in the above-average range. Response rates were around 1%, average gift approached $30, and costs were on the low side. The program worked, though it was a little unexciting.

BC proclaimed that 1% response was terrible and the average gift ridiculous -- because you're doing everything wrong!

Naturally, the BC had a solution:

• No specific offer. That "limited people's thinking" about the issue of poverty. The offer in our control was (yes, you guessed it) feeding hungry children.
  
• No problem, and no story. BC said the specificity we used in our fundraising was also "limiting" -- it emphasized the "otherness" of the people we were asking donors to help and thus reduced the sense of connection. Instead of a story about a child, there was an extended word-picture of an unnamed village somewhere in the developing world where things are going very well: kids are playing soccer, people are bicycling all over, the surrounding fields full of healthy veggies.
  
• Teaser. The outer envelope featured a pair of hands holding Planet Earth. In Whose hands might this non-religious organization depict having got the whole world? Well, BC wasn't specific about that, but said it would undercut the donors' sense that the world was a big mess ... that it was in "good hands." This would make them give. A lot.
  
• No reply device. BC proposed that the mailing should have no reply device, because that was so "downscale." Apparently one of the reasons we suffered a 1% response rate was the downscale direct mail look our direct mail had. We managed to talk them out of this one on statistical grounds -- with no reply device, there'd be no way to track the massive influx of donations the BC's version would unleash. BC grudgingly accepted that argument. This was the only argument we won with BC.
  

Well, you know how it is when you run a direct mail test. There's such a long lag between doing the work and getting back results, you often forget about the test. So when I saw the test results, there was one panel that looked like an error: it showed a response rate of 0.07% -- that is, seven donations for every 10,000 pieces sent.

The lowest direct-mail response rate I've encountered in my career.

And it wasn't an error. That weird-looking number was correct.

BC was not his normal voluble self after that. In fact, all we saw from him was a half-hearted memo that tried to blame the fiasco on the "outmoded direct mail system." By this time, nobody was listening.

Lessons?

• If someone's ideas sound like the fevered rantings of an opium fiend, they probably have the quality of the fevered rantings of an opium fiend, no matter how confident they are.
  
• The professionals (some of them, anyway) actually know what they're talking about. I have no doubt there are as-yet undiscovered ways to raise funds via direct mail. But we're more likely to find them by advancing beyond what we know ... not by trashing our knowledge and making stuff up.
  
• The bigger the promise a Brilliant Consultant makes, the more likely he's blowing smoke.
  
• Even the stupidest situation can eventually become a story you can tell.
  

(This post first appeared on February 24, 2017.)

Is your fundraising getting enough complaints?

If your fundraising never generates complaints from donors, it's not working at full strength.

There's a strong correlation between complaints and success in fundraising. Because any time you grab someone's attention and put a clear and urgent action in front of them, you potentially cause discomfort.

This is especially true of nondonors -- people who never or rarely donate to anything. Strong fundraising can put them in a place of real cognitive dissonance: You've made it clear giving is the right things to do. But they can't, or don't want to. To escape the discomfort, they can change their mind and give, wait for the feeling to pass, or blame the message for making them feel lousy.

That's why so many complaints come from nondonors or those who gave just one time long ago.

Complaints from donors usually have a different quality. It's not so much that your message causes them pain, as there's something about your message that isn't working for them.

Complaints from donors are important. You should engage with them and tell them the truth about why your fundraising is the way it is. This typically leads to a better relationship with the complaining donor, who now has deeper connection and insight.

Just don't re-engineer your messaging to pre-emptively avoid those complaints.

Anyone can carefully craft their fundraising so it avoids complaints. That avoidance torpedoes fundraising results.

Want your fundraising to be more effective? Remove fear of offending people from your list of requirements.

It's that simple (assuming you also do a good job of making the case). Complaints will trickle in, but revenue will pour in. Try it. It works.

Book review: Stop raising funds and help your donors make progress

Book Review: Demand-Side Sales 101: Stop Selling and Help Your Customers Make Progressby Bob Moesta

Remember "supply-side economics"?

There's also "supply-side sales."

And "demand-side sales."

The difference: supply-side sales is an approach that focuses on the thing being sold -- its features, benefits, and all-around awesomeness. Demand-side sales focuses on the customer -- what she needs, the problem she hopes to solve.

You're probably thinking two things right now. Let me guess:

1. "Supply-side sales sounds like most of the sales pitches I've ever heard."
   
2. "That sounds like fundraising!"
   

If that's what you're thinking, I agree with you. And that's why I appreciate this book. While it's all about selling products and services, the ideas translate well to fundraising, starting with the insight that people buy things because they have "Jobs to Be Done,” (JTBD): they don’t buy products, they hire them to make progress in their life.

Which is the point of Demand-Side Sales 101: Salespeople should stop blabbing about how superb their products are and start learning what their products can do for their customers, then make that the center of your pitch:

... great salespeople don’t sell; they help. They listen, understand what you want to achieve, and help you achieve it.

Same for fundraising, but with an important twist: when you donate, you don't take ownership of anything. Other than some tax advantages that few people need and even few care much about, the rewards are completely psychic.

But those psychic rewards are still the reason people donate -- it's still "progress" that people are seeking. And this is why the most effective fundraising is Demand-Side Fundraising.

This book can help, even though it's all about commercial marketing. Example: Here are three basic principles of sales from the book, which I've "edited" to make about fundraising:

1. People [give] for their own reasons. It’s more about progress than about your [organization or programs]. Your job as a [fundraiser] is to help people make progress on their terms; it’s about more than [fundraising] and making the “almighty dollar.” Approaching [fundraising] from this mindset will set you apart as a great [fundraiser].”
   
2. Nothing is random; everything is caused. Understanding the causal mechanisms of why people do what they do, down to the action level, is critical. It will help you see patterns and [raise funds] better while helping people make progress faster.”
   
3. The struggle creates demand. The struggling moment is the seed for all [giving]. Where do people struggle? Helping people make progress is embedded in finding these struggling moments. So, find the struggling moment!”
   

Here's more. "The Three Myths to Dispel," also edited for fundraisers:

1. Supply creates demand; build it and they will [donate to] it. No, the product does not create demand. People want to be their definition of best, not yours. It’s about fitting your [cause] into their life by understanding the progress they are trying to make.
   
2. [Donations] are random.... This is the idea that you just need to find people and they will [give]. [Fundraising] is not about finding people; it’s about creating demand. Many [fundraisers] operate under the probability framework: “If I get my [cause] in front of enough people eventually it will [raise funds]."
   
3. [Fundraising] is about convincing people, and you can convince anyone to do anything. [Fundraisers] don’t convince people to [give], people convince themselves. They [give] for their own reasons. You need understand them first, and then your [cause] and how it fits into their lives.
   

Business and sales theory can really give great insights to fundraisers. That's why I recommend you read this book.

Available at Powell's Books (an excellent independent bookseller)

The more lifts, the better the fundraising results

Lift Monday: A series about the art and science of "Lifts" in direct mail fundraising.

In direct mail, longer letters work better. It's not 100% -- but it's close. As close to a guarantee as you'll find in direct response.

It may be hard to believe. In fact, it's so hard to believe, I talk to people frequently who are absolutely the "longer is better" rule is some kind of scam. Even though every expert you ask about it will confirm the truth of it.

I bring it up because there's a similar truth that is also hard to believe. It's this:

Adding extra things to a fundraising direct mail pack improves response. And the more you add, the better the improvement.

Weird, yes. But dependable.

The highest number of lifts in a pack I helped create was 11:

• A sheet of personalized address labels.
  
• A 6-page booklet showing photos and descriptions of the offer.
  
• A small 12-month wall calendar (a separate page for each month).
  
• A bookmark (on cardstock).
  
• A bumpersticker.
  
• 2 holiday greeting cards.
  
• 2 envelopes for the greeting cards.
  
• 2 Christmas Tree ornaments (on cardstock)
  

This was a donor acquisition mailing. And it worked wonders for several years.

In theory, you could keep adding lifts all day, and each one would boost response. There's just one limit to that: Each lift adds cost to the pack, and at some point, you might price the project out of reach of success -- great response, but at too high a cost.

I'd think twice (or more) about using this many lifts in most US direct mail campaigns. But I would consider at least some of them.

You should too.

Any time you go to the effort of creating a direct mail fundraising piece, you should think about adding at least one lift piece to it.

Your non-fundraising colleagues and your board members will likely hate it when you add lifts. They'll say it contributes to the junk-mail look of your direct mail.

Maybe it does. But it works.

Your donors don't give a rip about that "direct mail look." They care about being able to make the world a better place.

And lifts can help them see that more clearly.

Read the other Lift Monday posts

How to create great direct mail fundraising teasers [PODCAST]

The most impactful element of any direct mail project is the teaser — what you put on the outer envelope.

We’ll share what works, what never works, and the surprising “most likely to succeed” approach.

We’ll also discuss email subject lines — a closely related topic with some strong similarities to direct mail teasers.

From the archives of the now-defunct podcast Fundraising Is Beautiful. This episode first aired on March 29, 2017. Listen here:

(If you don't see the audio player below, click here to listen.)

11 things you can do to improve fundraising emails

Your donors' email inboxes are crowded. You need every possible advantage to get their attention and action. Here are some tactics you can put to work from the Content Marketing Institute, at Fresh Ideas and Expert Advice for Writing Email That Gets Opened and Read:

1. [Use brackets] in the subject line. Brackets have been shown to increase email open rates by 31%. Go figure.
   
2. Keep comparison images close together. Before and after photos are highly compelling. If you use them, make sure they are close together.
   
3. Don’t spell numbers. 6, not six.
   
4. Say "because." This word helps prompt readers to action.
   
5. Capitalize without shouting. Emphasize a word here and there by putting it in all capitals.
   
6. Go negative. Loss avoidance is usually more compelling than opportunity.
   
7. Rhyme at the right time. Don't write entirely in poetry. Just use rhyming words in key places.
   
8. Proofread. Typos are easy to miss, but they can cause all kinds of problems.
   
9. Ask one question first and always. The question: Does this content serve our readers?
   
10. Give it a voice (and a face). Make it look and read like it's from a real and specific person. Not an institution.
    
11. Enable a two-way conversation. Make sure recipients can connect with you by hitting reply. Ask questions and invite response.
    

Good news and bad news about stats in fundraising

You probably know that using statistics in fundraising is not a great idea.

That's partly true. Stats can turn donors away, but there's also a way to put stats to work that can improve results. Read about it on The Agitator, at Do You Have a Big Number Problem?

The bad kind of statistic is large numbers. Like "One billion people live on a dollar a day." That's an mind-boggling fact; its boggling quality is exactly what's wrong with it:

The problem with large numbers is they tend to be favored by experts (read nonprofit program staff) who do understand the details and nuance behind the big numbers, but often don’t realize these big numbers are abstractions and offer little in the way of either emotional or practical context.

Using large numbers to describe the problem you want donors to join you in helping to solve is not just ineffective: It creates reasons not to donate. "A billion people need help" is for many a reason not to donate. Because a problem that big looks unsolvable.

But there is a way to use statistics in a way that invites people in instead of pushing them away: Express big facts in terms of one. Like this:

... one in six children or one in 11 adults has this disease or goes hungry at night. Instead of 11 million this and 19 million that...

That turns a stat into a story. "One is six" creates a mental picture of one. Something your reader can imagine. And when you can picture one, you can picture being part of a solution.

When you avoid big numbers in fundraising, you aren't hiding anything from donors. They already know the problems are big. Your job is to give them hope -- hope that they can make a difference.