It was the best of fundraising appeals, it was the worst of fundraising appeals.
Dear Endeavoring Reader,
If there is one thing that your fundraising consultants wish that they could tell you, it is this: it is not all about you.
Or rather, your fundraising copy should not be all about your organization, your founding, your programs, and how you are going to solve the problem.
If there is one thing that I can convince you of today, I hope it is this: all of your messaging should be centered on the donor and should present them with the opportunity to become the hero.
This is not something that your consultants have concocted and preach to seem smart. Rather, they drive it home because there is real money on the line—your money, specifically, and raising more of it. Which is what brings me to tell you the important story of two fundraising appeals . . .
As anyone who has run a direct mail program knows, a direct mail strategy should draw on performance reporting. In other words, you should make your plans after a deep analysis of the donations that have come in from a mailing.
Thinking about this made me curious, and so I set out to compare the best and worst direct mail packages. What was the true difference?
Spoiler: it’s all about donor-centric copy.
Let me first tell you what the packages had in common. Both were sent from the same organization to similar acquisition lists (in other words, lists rented or exchanged through a list broker). The package itself was very similar—9x12 envelope, six-page letter, detached reply form, and reply envelope. Both dropped around the same time of year.
Yet, one received an extraordinary 164% return on investment. The other barely scratched an 18% ROI.
To put these numbers into perspective:
- Package A cost $36,000 and came close to doubling that with a $60,000 return. This package brought in 275 donors who are forecasted to donate $740,000 to the organization over six years. Even more exciting, the average gift was over $200.
- Package B cost $19,000 and painfully wrangled it into $3,000. It brought in only 30 donors who will give an estimated $80,000 over 6 years. The average gift came in just above $100.
So, what made that (colossal) difference?
The difference between the high-performing Package A and the low-performing Package B was a lack of a clear, compelling narrative that attributed the impact to the donor.
While Package A tapped into a values-based theme, Package B lacked any coherent theme. Instead, it yammered on about various program areas without a clear through line. The copy felt like a laundry list of initiatives instead of a focused campaign.
There was no urgency or stakes. What would happen if the donor didn’t make a gift? Looking at Package B, you’d assume “nothing.” The organization seemed to have it all covered on its own, so why would you choose to offer (unneeded) help? In fact, there was no clear role for donors to play. The call to action asked the donor to “invest in our work,” which makes the donor’s gift a passive action at best.
The language was dry, matter of fact rather than personal, and talked about donor impact in passing and in the abstract. The letter was superficial, watering down issues that donors would care about in order to avoid upsetting anyone who wasn’t even aligned with the organization’s mission. The organization’s work was important, but no one would come away from this letter knowing that.
And lastly, although just as importantly, there was no segmentation. Each recipient received the same letter, despite the organization having enough information to personalize the appeal by segments. For instance, the letter could’ve been personalized by local impact. In this example, prospects receiving the letter in Texas would learn about the great need the organization is addressing and the impact it’s having, both for the state and for the nation.
With that cautionary tale dispensed with, let’s look at Package A with its 164% ROI. First and foremost, it made the donor the hero. Package B sang the organization’s own praises; Package A painted a picture of the difference the reader could personally make by giving. It had an ask offer and messaging that put the donor at the center of the fight.
Granted, the organization didn’t avoid talking about itself entirely. It’s a delicate balance to strike: in writing an appeal, you have to center the donor while still stressing that it’s not just giving in general that will make them the hero, it’s giving to your organization. In Package A, the organization was positioned as the strongest defender of its cause, contrasting a message of despair with a story of opportunity. And the messaging didn’t just convey that its mission is important, it stressed that it’s urgent. The stakes are high; the donor must act quickly. And acting was underscored as not being passive (“acting” couldn’t be a more active verb), but rather an act of courage.
Finally, Package A dispensed with hand waving and generics. It got personal, addressing each donor directly, incorporating knowledge of their location, priorities, and financial capabilities. One size doesn’t fit all with donors, and Package A was crafted with that in mind. And surprise, surprise, when a person feels addressed personally, they are far more likely to give.
When it comes to direct mail, the numbers speak for themselves. Your donor needs to be the hero of your work . . . or you’ll truly be left to do the work on your own.
