Future Fundraising Now

7 ways you can out-write AI in your fundraising

Afraid AI writing is coming for your writing job?

You just need to make your real intelligence to work. Yours comes with heart, experience, and depth beyond anything the artificial kind can imitate.

Here’s a post from the On Message Blog on How to Out-Write ChatGPT. Here are 7 ways to leverage your advantage over artificial intelligence:

1. Draw from your experiences. ChatGPT is a fancy parrot. You are a human being with experiences and a shared life with other human beings. Reach into real life to make your writing real.
   
2. Talk to humans. Learn from the amazing and different ways real people talk.
   
3. Stretch your creativity. You have tools in your brain that ChatGPT can’t match. But you have to use them.
   
4. Show don’t tell. Use all five of your senses to describe things. ChatGPT doesn’t have any of them.
   
5. Expand your reading. ChatGPT has you beat on volume of reading. But it you need to read as much (and as widely) as possible.
   
6. Use ChatGPT as a tool. If you use it as a tool -- and not as a crutch, it can make you better. It can help you start first drafts and explore ideas. It’s just a start for real writing, but as grandma used to say, “Well begun is half done!”
   

I’ll add a #7 to this list of ways you can out-write ChatGPT:

7. You can tell true stories. AI can’t. Game, set, match.

If you aren’t leveraging these innate human advantages in your writing, you’re really just a slow and sloppy version of AI. You might as well hand the job over.

Don’t believe everything the AI tells you

If you use AI to write for you, be sure to fact check.

Here’s an example of why AI’s knowledge is not trustworthy:

Harvey McKinnon asked ChatGPT about the world’s top fundraising consultant authors.

Here is what the robot told him:

As a language model Al, I don't have access to the most current data but here are some of the world's top fund raising consultant authors:

1. Ken Burnett
   
2. Jerold Panas
   
3. Dan Pallotta
   
4. Mal Warwick
   
5. Simone Joyaux
   
6. Jeff Brooks
   
7. Lesley Prince
   
8. Harvey McKinnon
   
9. Michael Ivaroni
   
10. Andrea Kihlstedt
    
11. Rick Lafleur
    
12. Penelope Burk
    
13. Tom Ahern
    
14. Gail Perry
    
15. Tom Watson
    

Harvey recognizes good, clean fun when he sees it, so sent this list to some of the people on the list. “For your ego,” he said.

Good company to be in.

I’m not sure if the numbers imply some kind of ranking. More important, you are probably noticing names that are not on the AI’s list. So AI missed a few.

But what about those names you don’t recognize? It’s not just you. Ken Burnett (#1) looked up the three names that most of us haven’t come across in the fundraising world. Here’s what we know about them:

• Lesley Prince. A retired public policy professor in the UK. It’s possible some her research touches on nonprofit issues, but I couldn’t find anything. There is also a labor organizer in Canada with that name.
  
• Michael Ivaroni. Couldn’t find anyone with that name. There is a Michael Iavarone, owner of a horse named Big Brown that won the Kentucky Derby in 2008.
  
• Rick LaFleur. The first “person” who comes up is Ricky Lafleur, a fictional character in the television series “Trailer Park Boys.” Some real people with that name include a Professor of Classics Emeritus at the University of Georgia, a banjo player from North Carolina, and a music teacher in Wisconsin.
  

(At least the robot admitted its information wasn’t the “most current.”)

Where did the information come from? The Internet. That tells you how accurate it is.

The names were no doubt found on websites that also included words about fundraising. The AI, being artificial, but certainly not intelligent, called the information good and spit it out. It took less than a second to do the research and write up the findings.

If you use AI to write something, be nervous. It’s likely to give you bad information. As always, consider it a first draft. Your writing and thinking has just started at the moment the AI flings its product at you.

See also: What’s bad about AI writing is nothing new.

5 ways to keep your readers paying attention

The hard part of fundraising is being interesting enough to keep readers involved. If you can get attention -- and keep it -- your chance of getting a donation skyrockets.

Here are some attention tips from Clairification, at Top 5 Nonprofit Attention-Grabbers:

1. Stop writing about “us and our stuff.” Your donors really don’t care about that. They just want to know if they can make the world a better place by giving to you. All your content about your org is a waste of their time -- or worse, a warning not to give.
   
2. Hit return more often. Long paragraphs are basically a warning sign that says: “Don’t bother to read. To dense, complex, and uninteresting. My personal rule is the longest allowable paragraph is six lines. And those should be rare. Most paragraphs should be one to four lines long. (This means you need to think differently about paragraphs than your English teacher taught you.)
   
3. Don’t stop at the subject line. Subject lines are the most important element of email effectiveness. But not the only one. There’s the sender and preview pane. There’s the way the email is designed. There’s the number and type of links.
   
4. Make it a metaphor. Simple, apt metaphors can make even complex ideas understandable and easy. And don’t shy away from “cliche” metaphors (like “She knew it like the back of her hand” they’re overused because people understand them).
   
5. Steal a tip from The New York Times. The tip: the average length of a quote in The Times is 7 words. Long quotations keep readers away.
   

Is AI coming to get your fundraising job?

To hear some people, it seems like Artificial Intelligence (AI, probably pronounced “Aiyeee!”) is a big robot, stalking us all, ready to take our jobs and turn us out into the cold.

So I asked AI (at Chat GPT, a free tool set up to answer questions) if it’s after my job. Here’s what AI said:

I’m sorry, but I am not capable of taking on any jobs or tasks outside of providing information and answering questions. I am a large language model trained by OpenAI, and my purpose is to assist users in generating human-like text based on the input provided to me. I do not have the ability to take on tasks or jobs, and I exist solely as a digital assistant.

What a relief!

(Unless it’s lying...)

But here’s why I believe it’s telling the truth: Its explanation about how it can’t take my job with “I’m sorry...”

I assume it did that because it’s common for humans to start an “no” answer with “I’m sorry.” A human with any emotional intelligence would not do that in this case. But AI doesn’t understand that. (Yet.)

If I were using this AI to write copy, and it made that mistake, I’d just edit it. And that’s what you’re supposed to do with AI-generated copy.

Which I think is the purpose of AI copywriting: It gives you a first draft. You’re still miles from a finished piece of fundraising copy. You have a lot of work to do to create connecting, human, effective writing.

That’s the way all quality writing goes:

1. You write a first draft. It’s lousy, not ready to share.
   
2. You work on it until it is ready.
   

So I can see AI as a useful tool for generating first drafts. You’re going to start with bad copy whether you write the first draft yourself, or get a mindless robot to do it for you. AI will just speed up what for many is the most difficult and frustrating part of the writing process. I’m good with that. (I’ll try it on an upcoming project, and let you know how it goes.)

I think the potential problem with AI is not the tool itself, but the way it’s likely to be used.

This became clear to me recently when I watched a demo of a fundraising-specific AI. The human showing how it works gave the tool a handful of vague, abstract phrases that were connected with a cause. The AI dutifully spit out vague, abstract prose.

Garbage in, garbage out.

But the garbage was grammatically correct, syntactically realistic prose. If you didn’t know better, you could easily think you had a finished letter in front of you. Call it good, send it out.

And watch it fail.

Which, I have to admit, is really no different from a lot of fundraising produced by humans who don’t know much about fundraising. Instead of applying knowledge based on experience, they take wild guesses based on their hunches and beliefs.

So I don’t think AI is going to change things that much:

• Some people will put AI to work as a writing tool. It might save some time on the way to a quality product when used right.
  
• Some people will use AI to churn out ineffective garbage fundraising. Most of those people are likely to be those who are already creating ineffective garbage fundraising without robot help.
  

Nothing really changes. Maybe AI saves people some time as they create good or bad fundraising.

Seth Godin made a good point recently about using AI:

If your work isn’t more useful or insightful or urgent than [AI] can create in 12 seconds, don’t interrupt people with it.

That’s right: AI fundraising could be just a machine that churns out tons of junk messaging that wastes people’s time. Or it could be a helpful tool for people who understand fundraising and know that it takes time no matter how you do it.

If a deeper understanding of what AI is and isn’t, I highly recommend this interest (and very funny) book: You Look Like a Thing and I Love You: How Artificial Intelligence Works and Why It's Making the World a Weirder Place by Janelle Shane.

Fundraising is not journalism

Fundraising writing and journalism have something important things in common:

Both are built on a foundation of storytelling.

And that's about all.

Journalism is about information. It means to tell the whole story -- the who, what, where, why, when, and how. All the relevant details and all the available information. And doing so in as clear and neutral as way as possible. It's about giving people information. An ethical journalist does not try to lead readers in any particular direction other than knowledge. What people do with the information is not the journalist's concern.

Fundraising is about action. It tells enough of the story to motivate readers to donate. Details that don't help with that can be left out. It has a clear and unashamed point of view and a stated goal to influence readers. The story told in fundraising should always link in to the story of the donor.

Learning journalism is a great way to be good at storytelling: It's all about getting information from the real world, writing about it clearly and vividly, and doing it all on deadline.

But when it comes to telling a fundraising story, that's when you step away from many of journalism's well-defined rules.

Keep donors paying attention by raising raising questions, not spouting answers

Ads written by journalists are why most people hate advertising.

They're also why so many ads are ineffective and a waste of money.

This is what we learn from The Monday Morning Memo at That Hovering Question Mark

It applies equally to fundraising.

Ads written by journalists are those that begin by revealing everything that is to come. Like, “Guidomeyer’s Furniture is having a sale!”

That's what you get when you follow the 5 Ws of journalism: Who, What, When, Where, and Why.

Fundraising written to those rules lead like this: "You can feed hungry children with your year-end donation today!"

It's a fact. Not a story.

To make it a story that the donor will be interested in paying attention to and possibly become part of by giving, open with a statement that triggers more questions than it answers.

This applies to email subject lines, outer envelope teasers, beginnings of letters ... wherever you're hoping to get the attention of would-be donors.

Pull people into the world of the problem you want them to help solve.

Don't whack them over the head with your pre-programmed solution to a problem they may not understand or know about.

2 things donors NEVER complain about

Donors can complain about quite a few things you might do, from spelling their name wrong to sending them mail while they were on vacation.

But there are a few things donors never complain about, including: “It’s Too Easy to Read!” The One Complaint I’ve Never Heard from a Donor (on The Better Fundraising Blog).

Some fundraisers "bulk up" the readability of the communications because they believe their donors are "more educated" and/or will bristle if "talked down" to. So they use long, complex sentences and technical terminology.

Which is a big mistake, no matter how highly educated and intelligent the donors are.

Because even the most towering intellectuals among donors don't notice that you're aiming up at them to recognize their achievements.

They just become less likely to respond when your message is harder to read.

Thing is, you'll also never hear a donor complain that your fundraising message is too difficult to read.

They don't notice that either.

Paying attention to readability is a responsibility of writers. Readers don't note the ease or difficulty of any text.

But if it's easy, they are more likely to read. If they read, they are more likely to respond.

And if it's difficult, they are less likely to read. Thus less likely to respond.

The correlation is clear.

But no complaints come in, either way.

If you want maximum response, make your message easy to read. That means two things:

1. Keep reading ease good, typically a Flesch–Kincaid grade level of 6 or lower or a score of 80 or higher.

(Yes, it's a bit confusing. There are two Flesch–Kincaid ways of measuring readability. Grade level, where lower numbers mean easier, and score, where higher numbers mean easier.)

2. Design for readability. That means large fonts (12 point should be the minimum), readable fonts (usually serif fonts in print), plenty of white space, short paragraphs, and no design tricks like reverse type or colored type.

Either way, complaints aren't going to clue you in that you've made an error of readability.

Response will show you. Hard to read = less response.

6 common errors that kill your fundraising story

Stories make fundraising come to life.

Most people know that.

But not every story does it. Here are some common ways otherwise strong stories can become weak and useless, failing to connect with donors:

1. Your story is not emotional. A "story" that isn't emotional isn't a story. It's a list. The entire purpose of telling a story in fundraising is to connect your cause with your donors' hearts. Because 95% of your donors will not donate until you've won over their hearts. Make your story about suffering, struggle, loss ... then show the donor how they can enter the story and help create a happy ending.
   
2. Your story has the wrong hero. The hero of an effective fundraising story is not your organization. Or your amazing staff. Or visionary founder. Any or all of them may be heroic, no question. But the hero of the story you tell to win over donors must be the donor. And they are more potential heroes. You are placing before them an opportunity to do something great. It's up to them to do it.
   
3. Your story is about programs, not people. Your programs are important. They must be well-designed and brilliantly implemented. But donors don't give because you have great programs. They give because they want to make a difference for fellow human beings. Make sure that's the story you tell!
   
4. Your story is not detailed enough. The way to make a story come to life is to focus on details. Especially those telling sensory details that put the reader into the scene. Think about the five senses, and include as many as you can. That turns a story from an account into a living reality for your donors.
   
5. Your story is too detailed. While you're thinking about adding details, also think about the details that don't make the story more vivid. You aren't practicing journalism, working to include all The who-what-where-when-why. If a detail doesn't make the story more human, interesting, and emotional -- leave it out.
   
6. Your story has a happy ending. Most of the stories we gather for fundraising have happy endings. We know about them because something went right! But a happy ending lets the reader off the hook. They see that things are good, and they are not needed! Leave the happy ending off the story. Save it for your newsletter and thank you letters -- so you can show donors their giving made a difference.
   

11 non-writing ways to write better

Writing is hard work that doesn't look much like work from the outside.

To do your best writing, here are some non-writing things you can do that really improve your creativity, productivity, and quality, from the Publication Coach blog, at How to get the ‘write’ mindset:

Here are 11 counterintuitive ways to get in the ‘write’ mindset by improving your own engagement, creativity and productivity:

1. Disconnect. All those wonderful ways you connect with the world are likely making you a worse writer by distracting you and keeping you off target. Limit your visits to your email to a few times a day. Make your writing time "sacred," not to be interrupted by IMs and other alarms. It will really make a difference for you!
   
2. Have plants on your desk. Really. Plants do something special for us.
   
3. Move more frequently. Get up and walk around from time to time. It might be helpful to set a timer to make sure you don't immobilize your body for too long.
   
4. Volunteer. It pays you back in ways that will surprise you.
   
5. Take advantage of your commute. If you commute, do so mindfully, using the time to read (or listen) to good stuff.
   
6. Quit multitasking. Sorry: nobody can really multitask. That's illusion. You think you're getting more done, but you're just doing a worse job of more things. Do one thing at a time.
   
7. Use a timer. Learn about the Pomodoro Method. Many people swear by it. Give it a try.
   
8. Plan each day the night before. It might seem more intuitive to plan your day as you start it, but by moving that step to the night before, you can often think more clearly about it. And you just might save yourself one of those toss-and-turn nights where you can't stop thinking about something that's coming up tomorrow!
   
9. Take lunch away from your desk. Yes, stop working for an hour or so. You work while you're working -- you should eat while you're eating.
   
10. Identify your most productive time and do your most challenging work during it. Everyone has a best time of day for working. Figure out yours, and then defend that time so you get the most out of it. You can get a lot more done in less time if you can arrange your time this way.
    
11. Take more breaks. Small breaks, like taking a walk during the work day. Medium breaks like having one day a week where you don't work. Bigger breaks, like vacations. They all add up to better productivity, better health, and more joy in your life.
    

Don't dumb down your fundraising -- smart it up

Some fundraisers are terribly afraid "dumbing down" their fundraising.

I think it comes from one (or more) of these sources:

1. Fear that if they don't come across as erudite or sophisticated, their donors will lose respect for them.
   
2. Pride (even arrogance) in their knowledge and education.
   
3. Obliviousness that not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) sees the world as they see it.
   

Here's what it looks like when writers approach fundraising like that:

Donor support will ensure patients and their families have the resources and support systems in place to maintain optimal mental health, including creating wellness centers, providing personalized navigation assistance, expanding treatments and services and a reimagined outpatient environment that develops innovative solutions for community-wide mental health issues.

This sentence doesn't need to be "dumbed down."

It needs to be "smarted up."

• It needs to be made more readable, with several shorter sentences that have one idea each.
  
• It needs to be about concrete things, not abstractions.
  
• It needs to use the language of the reader, not the jargon of the writer.
  
• It needs to address the reader in a direct way -- not just make an observation about "donor support."
  
• It needs heart.
  

And all that takes skillful, careful, smart writing.

You and I see writing like this in fundraising all the time. The writers no doubt think they're displaying their professionalism and intelligence.

What they're doing is displaying their lack of writing chops.

Few donors will notice, because few will make it beyond the third word of a passage like this. Those who get through will have no idea what it's about, much less what they should do about it.

Next time you're told not to "dumb down" your writing, take a moment to see what you can do do "smart it up." You'll see the result in your fundraising revenue almost immediately.