Future Fundraising Now

Are direct mail lifts wasteful?

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

One of the complaints people in fundraising make about direct mail lifts is that they are "wasteful." Many go as far as to say lifts will cause a piece to fail because donors will see it as wasteful and refuse to give.

The truth about "waste" is that it's in the eye of the beholder. Anything sent to you that you don't want is wasteful. When it's something you want, the idea of waste doesn't come up.

Think of it this way: If your niece, nephew, or grandchild sent you a thick envelope packed with their drawings and notes, would you scold them for being "wasteful"? I sure hope not! Most likely it would never occur to you to think of it as anything but delightful.

Same thing in direct mail. If you stuff the envelope with irrelevant junk that donors don't want, you are -- and will be perceived as -- wasteful.

But if it's relevant, interesting, useful stuff that connect with them -- not wasteful!

Some direct mail fundraisers sail very close to the wind in that area, really ramping up the chance of being seen as wasteful by the quantity (high) and quality (low) of the lifts they send. I wrote about it here: Is your direct mail fundraising just a garbage factory?

But let's return to the central point of this whole series on direct mail lifts: When well chosen and executed, they usually improve response. And more lifts improve response more.

Every time you create direct mail, give some thought to including lifts. They are not a must-do, but they are more likely helpful than not.

Read the other Lift Monday posts

Why fundraising writers should sweat the small stuff

There was a discussion on Twitter about the word partner, used as a verb. As in, "Will you partner with us on this important project?"

Lisa Sargent was advising against it. I think any real writer (like Lisa) has a flinch reaction to partner as a verb, because it's abstract and jargony.

But someone else in the conversation noted that he uses it all the time in fundraising, and is doing just fine, thank you.

Which viewpoint is correct? Is partner-as-verb terrible for fundraising -- or harmless, maybe even good?

I've never tested it. But I've tested a lot of things, and I can tell you that testing one word is almost guaranteed to yield statistically insignificant results. The test would be a waste of time and money.

So everyone should feel free to use partner as a verb in their fundraising, even though it makes most writers flinch. Right?

Well, no.

I'd warn you away from using partneras a verb. Ever.

Not because it's going to do any measurable harm to your fundraising results (it probably won't). But because communication is cumulative.

All written communication is in a context. There's a reason you never read those software user agreements before you click "I've read these terms and agree to them." They trained you long ago that they were not only boring, but incomprehensible. They accomplished that by being boring and incomprehensible, over and over again. Now they're impossible to read. And nobody reads them.

Fundraising is also in a context. It is training donors to think of it as interesting, or exciting, or important, or whatever is most often is. Even if it's boring, or incomprehensible ... or (much more likely) abstract and jargony.

Every time you use partner as a verb -- or any other word or phrase that doesn't communicate specific action and/or pulse-pounding emotion ... you put one more brick in the wall that will eventually keep donors away from reading your fundraising.

If your organization has a great brand, and you have a powerful call to action, and the right audience, and your writing is strong, clear, and emotional ... your fundraising is going to do well. Even if you use partner as a verb. The negative impact is darn close to zero.

But we need to think about your future fundraising. Will donors approach it expecting to have a powerful emotional experience and a believable opportunity to change the world? Or will they approach it expecting vague jargon that they have to puzzle through to understand? The difference is at least partly up to what you do now.

So I'm with Lisa. Sweat the small stuff. When the verb that comes to your mind is an abstraction like "partner," be a writer: Push beyond for a better word -- more concrete, more emotional, more thrilling.

It matters. Maybe not for the project at hand, but eventually.

(This post first appeared on March 27, 2017.)

Are we heading for a post-COVID fundraising slump?

It's a reasonable question: after two years of unprecedented fundraising success (assuming you've stayed in touch with donors), when will things stop being this way? When will the extraordinary pandemic response end, leaving us in the lurch?

It's not an unreasonable fear. After all, disaster donors are notoriously fickle. The large majority of donors who give for the first time in response to disasters never give again. Clearly, they are motivated by the disaster, and have no intention of starting a long-term relationship with the organizations they give to.

(Retention of first-time disaster donors is typically around 10%, as compared to 20% of new donors industry-wide and 30% or better for fundraisers doing everything well.)

That's just a fact of life, one you are familiar with if you work in a sector that deals with occasional disasters.

So here's the question: Are all those new (and upgraded) COVID donors going to behave like "normal" disaster donors? Are many of them going to disappear once things get back to normal -- the way disaster donors do?

My prediction

I believe we will see a "softening" of fundraising results this year, but not a "crash." Mostly because COVID-motivated donors will stay with us at higher rates than typical disaster donors.

Here's why: This disaster keeps going. "Normal" disasters flash through the media, and then drop out of the news after a few days or weeks. For everyone except those who live through the disaster, it comes to an end.

This disaster has hung around. And it's not over yet.

That means donors who might otherwise have been one-and-done disaster donors have had many more occasions to respond. Many of them made subsequent donations -- and each gift after that first one improves the chance that a donor is going to stick with you.

In my corner of the fundraising world, revenue grew at unprecedented rates in 2020. Then grew again in 2021 -- at rates that would have been record-breaking in pre-COVID times, but were often disappointing by comparison.

I think 2022 will be similar: A good year. Just not as good as before.

Silly boards and other leaders may see this as some kind of failure. It's not. The real failures will be those organizations that decide for their donors that they are "fatigued" and no longer want to be part of changing the world and stop fundraising.

What should you do in these times?

Do what you always should do:

• Keep connecting with donors and would-be donors.
  
• Keep telling them the truth about the world and how it can be better with their help.
  
• Put meaningful action in their hands.
  
• Pay attention to what works.
  
• Keep your eyes open for changes in tech, media use, and the overall giving climate.
  

  If my prediction (which is just a guess) is right or wrong, this is the strategy that will work best for you. This year and beyond.

The shocking power of a fundraising brand proposition

I admit it: "value proposition" is a jargon term.

But it's a useful one for fundraisers, so I'm using it here.

Because, as this excellent post at NextAfter says, Nonprofits Have a Value Proposition Problem.

The post defines a nonprofit value proposition as a the answer to a four-part question every potential donor has:

• “If I am your ideal donor…”
  
• “…why should I give to you…”
  
• “…rather than some other organization…”
  
• “…or at all?”
  

If you don't have a satisfactory answer to this, you are unlikely to get a donation. And you don't have to have the answers for all donors -- just a sufficient number of them. In fact, it's literally impossible to be just right for everyone.

The post then demonstrates this idea with a value proposition test that you really need to see.

It's a fundraising campaign as it appears on a webpage.

Treatment A: Features a large photo of a smiling child holding a goat. The text says “This Christmas Change a Life” (the latter three words styled in a large and attractive script). A button below says SHOP NOW.

Treatment B: Same photo. Headline says "You Can Change a Life with a Gift." Below that is a paragraph describing how the donor can do good things by giving. A button below says CHANGE A LIFE BY GIVING A GIFT.

Treatment A would look good in a designer's portfolio. I bet everyone at the org really loved it. Treatment B probably made the designer want to cry, and I bet people at the org all said "Ugh!" in unison when they saw it. (I have no inside knowledge about this project; I'm just guessing, based on many years of seeing things like this.)

But here's the important thing. It was a head-to-head test, and Treatment B got a 34.7% increase in donations.

It always goes this way in fundraising.

When you make it clear the specific way the donor can make the world a better place, you do well. Your message zeroes in on those who want to do what your organization does and show them it's real.

When you focus on making it all stylish and nice, the only donations you get are from people who write a value proposition for you.

It comes down to the universal reality of fundraising (and all marketing): people buy what you're selling when they see that its something that fits in their life.

That's what a value proposition is.

The strange truth about address labels and other freemiums in fundraising

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

Probably the most common type of lift in direct mail fundraising is the humble and maligned freemium.

You know, address labels and other inexpensive things such as notepads, bookplates, pens, coins, and greeting cards.

I'm calling them "freemiums" to differentiate them from "premiums," which are items donors are offered in return for a gift, like the classic public broadcasting totebag. Similar, but meaningfully different.

Freemiums can work for many organizations.

They might work for you, but you have to be on top of the economics and the psychology of using them. Unlike other lifts they you can just include in the envelope and hope they more than pay for themselves, freemiums require a wide-awake approach.

Here's the main thing to know about freemiums: They increase response to direct mail fundraising. Sometimes by quite a lot.

Here's the other thing to know: They decrease average gift. And, sometimes, they lower subsequent donor retention.

You get more donors, but lower value donors.

Whether that's good or bad is the big question. Obviously, you'd like more high value donors. But sometimes getting a higher volume of low-value donors pencils out because you end up with more candidates to upgrade to major-status, more who convert to monthly, and more who make bequests.

It works in some cases, not in others.

And the only way to find out is through testing.

One thing you should not do, though: Reject the whole idea of freemiums just because you think it's tacky.

They work very well for some. Maybe for you.

The Lift Monday series concludes next week with a look at the question you may have been asking all along: Are lifts wasteful?

Read the other Lift Monday posts

What happens if you listen to your donors TOO MUCH

Maybe you're listening to your donors too much.

Surprised to hear me ask that?

After all, fundraisers are in the business of supplying donors with what they want and need. The problem is, what they tell you they want is so often not at all what really motivates them to respond.

Virtuous blog tells the sad tale of some customer-listening done by Walmart, at When Not Listening to Your Donors Is the Right Thing to Do.

Seems the retail giant did some research and found out that most customers wished the stores were "less cluttered." I get that. I would have said the same thing.

So Walmart got less cluttered. And sales dropped $1.9 billion. Why?

... they listened to the wrong data -- what customers said instead of what customers did. Not to pile on ... but they took this critical mistake and decided to make it exponentially worse. They decided to take the response as gospel and forget everything they previously knew about customer purchasing behavior.

(I think they've since gone back to clutter.)

Here's the thing. Those people who wanted less clutter were telling the truth -- as far as they know it. They only have access to their conscious opinions. Their real behavior is more deeply rooted in their brains, in those subconscious lizard-like places that drive most human behavior.

It's the same with donors. Ask them what they want, and they'll give you all kinds of terrible advice. They want to hear from you once a year. They don't need emotional stories or suggested ask amounts. They don't want long messages or emotional photos. They tell you they'll donate more if you don't do those things.

Except they won't.

Listening means paying attention to what donors do. And taking what they say with a grain of salt.

There's nothing wrong with donors. That's just the way everyone is. Including you and me.

Do your fundraising in the real world -- the world of behavior, not opinions.

Is your boss driven by strategy -- or squirrels?

The executive director got an email from an organization she supports. It contained a link to a thank-you video. It was polished but simple, and was even personalized to her. A nice piece of donor stewardship.

The executive director, a helpful and energetic person, forwarded the email to her development director with a comment attached: This is wonderful! We need to do this for our donors!

The development director forwarded it to me with another comment: Please tell me this is a terrible idea that we should not do!

I couldn't oblige. Thank-you videos for donors are a good idea -- assuming enough of your donors are online (they probably are), and you really thank donors, and not make it a brag-fest about yourself.

The problem was that there was no real strategy for building relationships with donors. Or anything else, really.

Thire strategy was this: Whenever the boss or a board member gets an idea, drop everything and do it!

This might sound familiar. Because it's the operating strategy for a lot of nonprofit fundraising programs.

• Put QR codes all over everything!
  
• Amazon Smile!
  
• Move all fundraising onto Instagram!
  
• Make everything this shade of green I just read makes people happy!
  
• Start accepting crypto!
  
• Create a special proposal for my cousin's son-in-law's neighbor, who is very wealthy and would probably love us!
  
• Buy ads in this cool magazine!
  

Bad ideas? Maybe. Some might be good ideas.

But they're all bad if they aren't connected to a strategy. They become the project of the week (or month) while critical, on-strategy work gets delayed. Or a strategic plan never gets formulated.

A strategic and strategically led organization would know their donor retention rate. They'd know if they are replacing lost donors with new donors at an acceptable rate. They'd know how many donors they are moving to monthly giving. Upgrading to midlevel or major status. How many bequest leads they are generating.

And they'd be pursuing activities that plug holes and take advantage of strengths.

Instead of dropping everything and running to the window the way a dog does when you yell "Squirrel!"

Ideas are great. Having ideas is something leaders should do. But far more important is having a strategy that guides your time and energy every day.

When you have a strategy, that cool video the boss got can spark a quick conversation:

• What does the idea do to meet the needs we've identified as most important?
  
• Should it take precedent over the things we're already doing?
  
• If this is something that fits our strategy, where in the "queue" should this be?
  

Sometimes, new and unexpected things should jump the queue and become an instant priority. Responding to the pandemic back in the spring of 2020 was that kind of thing.

When you are led by strategy, rather than what shows up in someone's inbox, you can make smart decisions about what you should do, what should wait, and what you can ignore.

That's what true nonprofit leadership should be like.

3 steps to avoid sounding completely fake

A lot of fundraising writing uses a tone you'd never use with people you know and care about. If you did, they'd slap your face. Or call 911, seeking immediate help for you.

Here's the kind of writing nonsense I mean:

• Phony superlatives, like "leading," "best," "most important."
  
• Meaningless, high-flown claims, like "cutting-edge" and "pioneering."
  
• Professional jargon that makes sense inside your office, but leaves donors wondering what's up.
  
• Abstractions like "hope," "community," and "justice." They sound noble, but they don't reveal anything specific.
  
• Organizational self-aggrandizement. Look-at-us copy that talks at donors, not to them.
  
• Unnaturally long and complex sentences that abandon all pretense of human speech.
  
• Lawyer-junk like © and ™.
  
• Legal disclaimers and other CYA weasel talk.
  

It all adds up to a tone of voice that nobody would ever use in person.

Your donors, like everyone else, is getting wary about inhuman marketing language. They know it more often than not signifies irrelevance and semi-truthful claims. They prefer authentic, human conversation ... and increasingly ignore the other stuff as the noise it is.

Your nonprofit organization is doing real things. There's no reason to sound phony when you talk about it. It's not like you're struggling to market one of 12 types of virtually identical detergents. Be real!

Here are three steps to keep your writing human:

1. Pretend you're talking to your mother (or someone else you know well). Fake-sounding writing will stand out a mile when you do that.
   
2. Read your copy out loud. If it doesn't sound at least somewhat like speech, send it back for revision.
   
3. Ban the committee writing process. That will always make your copy sound inhuman.
   

The enhanced magic of "bounce backs" in fundraising

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

My favorite type of direct mail lift is the kind you ask the donor to send back: bounce backs.

Ideally, there's some kind of logical reason you've sent them something and they send it back, usually to sign their name and it will end up in the hands of someone who will appreciate it.

Here are some examples from my experience:

• Shipping label. When your offer is for donors to cover shipping costs for donated gifts-in-kind (food, medical supplies, tools, etc.) The donor signs the label (on actual crack-and-peel sticker paper works best by far) and it will be attached to a box or container in the shipment. This has proved incredibly successful more than once.
  
• Bookplates. When the offer is books (including Bibles), a sticker (or a sheet of stickers) that say something like "This book is a donation of [Ms. Edna Q. Donor]" (the name can be personalized on the bookplate or you can ask the donor to write their name).
  
• Greeting cards. Something the donor signs that will be seen by a beneficiary: Get well soon, thinking of you, praying for you ...
  
• Practical items that can fit in an envelope, such as a ruler or protractor for students.
  

  Sometimes the logic for the bounce back is quite thin: I've sent you this [item] so you could see it for yourself and realize what an incredible difference your donation can make... And really, some seriously illogical bounce backs do just fine.

  It should go without saying that you should do what you say you'll do with the bounce backs that bounce back. It's unethical to do otherwise.

  It's possible to do a type of bounce back in digital fundraising. It's just that the donor doesn't get to handle the thing that will end up in the hands of someone they helped.

  Here's a bounce back shipping label:

  
  

  Read the other Lift Monday posts

Top-10 most googled posts of the year

What people are Googling is a sometimes-scary look into the soul of mankind. Here are 2021's top 10 posts on this blog that people found via Google. Enjoy this not-at-all scary look into the soul of people curious about fundraising.

1. It's one word -- science proves. (Posted: 29 December 2010) Is it "fund raising" or "fundraising"? Back in 2010, I came up with a definitive answer. People keep asking Google which it is.
   
2. 10 tips for great newsletter interviews. (Posted: 19 October 2010) Super-helpful guest post by super-smart fundraising writer Jennifer Miller.
   
3. 5 donor-friendly ways to raise unrestricted funds. (Posted: 27 February 2020) This can help you handle that often frustrating impasse between the specificity it takes to motivate donors and the need for the flexible funding your organization needs.
   
4. What happens when you send a check to your donors?. (Posted: 30 January 2014) I suspect that many who Google this (and the next one) are outside of the fundraising profession, wondering what's up with a mailing that includes an actual check made out to the donor.
   
5. Why fundraisers send those annoying address labels. (Posted: 24 November 2014) A look at the economics of address labels (and other "freemiums" in direct mail fundraising.
   
6. 15 really bad real ideas from real nonprofits. (Posted: 7 August 2017) Just what it sounds like. I'm not sure what prompts people to Google for bad ideas.
   
7. A patron saint for fundraisers. (Posted: 6 December 2011) It's Saint Nicholas.
   
8. How to do a matching funds appeal [EXAMPLE]. (Posted: 18 December 2019) I got a good example of a matching funds appeal in the mail and dissected it for you.
   
9. Board member names on fundraising letterhead: why or why not?. (Posted: 23 October 2018) There's pretty much a right answer to this question.
   
10. What's wrong with the donor pyramid. (Posted: 13 February 2019) An alternative approach to your strategic framework for your fundraising program.