8 BOO BOO’s! Are You SCARING Nonprofit Donors Away?
Are you writing your own fundraising letters? Worse still, is your Executive Director writing them? According to Jeff Brooks “insiders” like you and your key staff are simply too close to the organization to write effective, persuasive copy. Why? Because
over time you/they have developed a certain way of thinking, and a certain proprietary knowledge, and you think everyone else shares the same thought processes and understanding of the subject matter. They don’t.
HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS CARE ABOUT/VALUE?
First, let’s discuss the ways we don’t find out. These are what I call common communication missteps, and they actually precede any communication:
1. Don’t rely on a boss/board to tell you what constituents want.
You’ll only find out what your boss and your board care about. Brooks points us towards Roy H. Williams’ Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Read it and weep. How many times have you tried something, only to have a boss or key staffer or volunteer say “Well, I’ve always heard…” “That’s not how I understand this…” “People I’ve spoken to say…” And, the pièce de résistance according to Mr. Williams is “Studies have shown.” What studies?! Leaders, especially those who’ve been around for a long time, think they know. They may have known at one time. But they get stuck in the past. What is “fact” to them is not true today. Yet, sadly, there’s no way to convince a person who makes up their own facts.
2. Don’t rely on unsubstantiated advice from pundits.
Social media scientist Dan Zarella likens urban legends to unsubstantiated advice. He notes that anyone who’s ever read about social media, or attended a marketing conference, has received tons of advice about how to best engage/persuade constituents. He calls this “unicorns and rainbows” advice. An unsuspecting, unaware audience, in awe of a charismatic presenter, will adopt the unsubstantiated ideas of the presenter without questioning. It’s like fearing a flu shot because you think it will give you the flu. Despite the fact that Jim got the flu shot, and then got the flu, it does not follow that it was because of the shot. The flu germs in the flu shot are dead; they cannot come back to life. That’s the fact. Zarella reminds us of the Latin name for this seductive, misbegotten logic, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc“, and it’s difficult to resist: “The second thing followed the first thing, therefore the first thing caused the second thing.” But it’s almost never true.
So, while it may be easy to agree with a pundit’s advice that all fundraising letters must be four pages (or a boss’s insistence that they be one page), it’s not verified until you test it for yourself or until you hire a firm that does this for a living, and has a boatload of data that shows what works for organizations like yours.
3. Don’t rely on what your major donor told you is important.
Fundraising letters are not written to placate major donors. Write to your typical donor. They don’t know you as well, and may not think about you as often. You need to get a sense of value from the 99%; not the 1% (see Part 2, tomorrow, for some suggestions about how to find out what the 99% value).
4. Don’t rely on your sense of self-importance.
This is a common misstep. We begin our letters with “As a member of the board, I am struck by…” It’s all about us. We need to use words that are about our supporters. You are critical to the fight. Donors want to know why you need them. Of course, it can be challenging to write from this perspective if you don’t know what your donors truly care about.
READERS: What examples can you share where opinion trumped knowledge, leading to a positive or negative outcome?
Watch for Part 2 tomorrow: HOW TO ASSURE OUR FUNDRASING COMMUNICATIONS AREN’T A ONE-WAY STREET – GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
