Is our fundraising writing wrong?

Arts policy, reconsidered « PREV | NEXT »: Rent, buy, build, or borrow

Many arts organizations work really hard to craft the perfect fundraising message in their letters, their brochures, and their online communications. They strive for strong evidence that what they do makes a difference, they anguish over the specific words they should use to convey that evidence, and they hope to close the deal by making the rational case for financial support. But somewhere in there, many of us forget to tell a compelling story.

So discovered Frank C. Dickerson in his dissertation research on the language of philanthropy. After running more than 2000 fundraising letters through a text analysis system, he found a frightening consistency with a similar, smaller study, which discovered that fundraising discourse:

failed to connect with and involve readers on a personal and emotional level, and
failed to tell stories about real people whom readers might actually care about

Instead, messages were clinical, detached, evidence-based, and academic.

Of course, I'm a big fan of evidence, and supporting your impact with sufficient credential to prove your point. But that evidence need not be exclusively rational, linear, or statistical. A good story -- the transformation of a key constituent or participant, the revelation of another, the influence on a child's daily life -- is evidence of a different kind. But also of a more compelling kind when asking people to support you with their attention, passion, and cash.

November 13, 2009 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) |

5 Comments

By jane deschner on December 4, 2009 8:03 AM

Why assume the year end appeal has to be a letter? Use some imagination! I work with the public library in Billings, Montana. Several years ago we changed their year end letter to an 10 x 14 inch (folds to 5 x 7), black and white, two-sided piece with photos and copy. I feel that if an organization wants money from me, they can make an extra effort and do more than just write another long letter that I, a busy person, am supposed to wade through.

By Clint Riley on November 16, 2009 10:39 AM

Concise and smart. Thank you for the perspective. I appreciate it, as always.

By Erik Hanberg on November 15, 2009 1:54 PM

I have two goals when writing an appeal letter:

1) Talk about the goal
2) Then talk about why my organization is the best non-profit to meet it.

The first part is my chance to connect donors with what they love. This comes from a belief that the kind of donor you're reaching in an annual appeal doesn't want to support "an organization," per se. They want to support music, or theater, or dance, or film. Any loyalty they feel to an organization is because they like the end result--ie, the mission.

When I make the ask at the beginning of the letter, it is never "to support the theater" but to "support more rich and diverse film programming in our community." Those are examples, but you get the idea.

After connecting them emotionally with the goal, only then do I really turn to the organization itself and show why we are the best place to give for that cause.

So I totally agree. It's got to resonate emotionally before you get the rationality and evidence.

By Bill Abramovitz on November 13, 2009 6:02 PM

A couple additional peeves of mine:

- the tendency to be pedantic
- using supposed responsibility or "duty" as the impetus to give money
- zero linkage between the benefit to the donor and asked for gift

People give money because a cause touches them personally. A test I would recommend is reading the letter aloud to another person, and looking into their eyes to find out if they give a hoot.

By Rob Manegold on November 13, 2009 3:30 PM

Andrew - Thank you for the link on writting a better "ask". Valuable and timely as all the BAD letters have started to arrive for the end of year requests. Keep'em coming.