Messages that Send the Wrong Message in Fundraising

Posted by Menachem Lubinsky on January 11, 2010 under Recession | View Comments

A school was in dire need of a new heating system. The old boiler had been breaking down with increased frequency, even resulting in the closure of the school for two days. The Board of Directors had decided that to raise the money, they would immediately embark on a full court press, including full pages in the local newspapers. The heading of the first ad began like many ads that were common in the ‘60’s: “Emergency Campaign.” The words were in big block letters and there was a picture of the building below. The letter similarly had a headline: “This is not an ordinary appeal. It is an emergency campaign.”

Another institution on a capital campaign wanted to make sure that potential donors understood that the money to be raised for a new building did not conflict with their ordinary fundraising efforts. It too mounted an intensive advertising campaign with the heading: “Building for the Future.” The copy went on to thank readers for their past support but noted that this appeal was for the new building.

A leading social service organization sought to raise money for a special summer project for disadvantaged children. These children were to be treated to a two-week camping experience. In the past, the organization used to receive funds from two benefactors but because of the recession they were now forced to raise money from the public. The heading of their full page ad read: “These children need your help!” There were pictures of sad-faced children sitting on a stoop.

These are three examples of campaigns that did very poorly, not because there was a flaw in the cause, but the message did not send the “right message.” Marketers have long argued over buzzwords that are effective versus those that that receive a lukewarm reception or in fact have an opposite effect. If the above three approaches were analyzed in a “marketing lab,” each one would come back with serious flaws.

The “Emergency Campaign” was found lacking because it lacks credibility and because people would rather be part of a success than a potential failure. In today’s environment, emergency campaigns make the reader believe that the institution had somehow failed to properly plan for the emergency. There is also the fear that the money for this emergency may not be enough and that there will be a repeat campaign and then some. In short, it exudes an environment of instability and makes people wonder. Crying wolf just doesn’t work anymore for most campaigns, unless there is a strong personality behind it.

In today’s lexicon of successful marketing phrases, the school would have fared better with simple headings like “We’re Turning up the Heat for our Students, ” “We’re Getting our School Out of the Cold,” and ‘Warm up to Our New Generation.” These were actually used along with powerful copy and were highly successful.

“Building for the Future” was the kind of message that generates a huge yawn. Yes, building usually means for the future unless you are building a tent and there was no case made as to why this building for the future was particularly different than any other institution that is building for the future. It generates little excitement and certainly is no reason to loosen the purse strings of potential donors.

The campaign that did work for the building campaign was “When a Building Says Thank You.” It went on to review some of the special features of the building and how it would be used. It specifically used testimonials from people who would benefit from the new building and ended with the slogan: “You’re Welcome” with an invitation to visit the site.

The message for the disadvantaged children similarly fell short of tugging at the emotions of the reader. People are fed up with help this or help that ads. The campaign that did work was: “The Children of Summer” with faces of smiling children and happy scenes from camp.

The evidence is clear that people nowadays respond to messages that are more upbeat, demonstrate stability and offer the confidence that the institution is properly managed. Potential donors are also interested in leveraging their money, which means that they want to know that they are part of something far bigger. They respond well when it is part of a movement where people in their social and income strata are also involved.

It takes a bit of research to determine who the target audience is, as it is with every marketing effort. For example, previous donors may wish to know how past efforts fared. To the extent that they are confident that their previous contribution was wisely used, they will repeat the donation.

Donors are very concerned about the proper management of money. They want to see wise choices that include frugality when necessary. A donor wishes to know that if an institution is in need of money, that it has done its share of belt-tightening.

At a recent seminar in Washington DC, a leading expert in fundraising guessed that most people want to help the disadvantaged. But he noted they want to make sure that their money is used to provide the support not to pay for the infrastructure of the organization. It is for that reason, he noted, that the focus must be on efficiency, which means that the organization makes the case how it is spending most of the money for the actual cause.

The expert also focused on the buzzwords citing examples how the difference of a word here and there was the difference between $66,000 for one institution and $1 million for a similar institution. What a difference a word makes!

The Recession in a Fundraising Letter

Posted by Menachem Lubinsky on December 27, 2009 under Recession | View Comments

The letter to donors of a well-known yeshiva began with a reference to the recession: “As you know, our yeshiva was severely impacted by the recession, forcing the administration to make some difficult choices.” The body of the letter spoke about the yeshiva’s excellent program, its faculty and so forth. It wasn’t until the last paragraph, perhaps what you might call “the punch line,” that the letter again invoked the recession.

“We are once again appealing to your generosity to help us cope with this recession which threatens to force us to make further cuts that will no doubt affect our educational excellence. We are hoping that you could increase your pledge of 2008 to avoid such a dreadful possibility.”

The administrator who shared the letter with me wanted my opinion as to why the letter had not generated any appreciable response. He thought that the letter was an honest and straightforward appeal for help in difficult times. His immediate reaction was that “people just don’t read letters,” an argument I have frequently heard from others defending poor grammar, structure, and content of a letter.

I am totally opposed to the theory that “no one will read the letter anyways,” whether it is for a yeshiva or a marketing letter. I have written on numerous occasions that to adopt such an attitude is to look down at your target audience and to insult their intelligence. Besides, whether people express it or not, they do respond to well-written letters.

Perhaps the yeshiva letter quoted above could have acknowledged that they weren’t the only ones that were victims of the recession. A letter I received from a prominent Jewish social service agency did just that: “I know that like most Americans you are facing the challenges of these difficult economic times. But while you are doing the best you can to address these challenges, you are also eager to help others avoid being crushed by this economic downturn.”

The social service agency letter went on to cite several cases of people who were devastated by the recession, ending with a very moving sentence: “When this recession is over we will look back at our strength and resilience to have survived some difficult days, but we will be even more fulfilled with the thought of how we helped people less fortunate than us pull through.” The agency reported that it managed to match last year’s revenues, which is no small feat in a deep recession.

Perhaps the yeshiva letter was correct in volunteering the fact that the yeshiva was not waiting for outside help to cope with the recession. It spoke of having made some “difficult choices,” which could be construed as trimming their budget. But the letter was short on specifics and did not give the reader the comfort that it was doing everything to avoid falling into a deeper financial bind. While the opening and close dealt with the effects of the recession, the middle paragraphs appeared to be business as usual. Indeed, the administrator admitted that he had used “cut and paste” to construct the letter.

On the other hand, the social service agency used a professional writer to construct the letter from scratch and used many current cases that made the letter believable. It certainly did not adopt the attitude that the letter would not be read.

A letter I obtained from a friend that he had received from another yeshiva on the eve of Chanukah was perhaps a classic example of a letter that should not have been written. The introductory paragraph was more or less a greeting about Chanukah, but the second paragraph was totally written with poor judgment.

“Our board has asked that you consider adding at least $200 to last year’s pledge, which will add up to the $150,000 the yeshiva needs immediately to pay vendors. If you cannot pay this sum at once, please indicate on the above form your intention to pay out this money over a year or two.”

The rest of the letter was no better, but I wondered why the letter was ever sent. My fried had no connection to that yeshiva other than receiving occasional fundraising letters from them. Even if it were addressed to parents, it would be a poorly written and perhaps totally insensitive letter.

So is this marketing? Of course it is. If you want a potential customer (or donor) to respond, you have to be extremely sensitive to their current situation. Phrases like “we recognize your…” or “We know how difficult…” go a long way in connecting with the reader of the letter, just as the social service agency did in acknowledging that the reader was also coping with difficult times.

I know that many not-for-profits are looking for ways to deal with the shortfalls of this recession. There are many creative ways to address the ongoing crisis in fundraising. Perhaps a good way to start is with the letters sent to donors.