How to Write Fundraising Materials that Raise More Money eBook
How to Write Fundraising Materials that Raise More Money eBook
The Art...The Science...The Secrets...
by Tom Ahern, 187 pp. (pdf)
Do one small thing, and it's likely you can boost your gift income this year by 15 percent. Simply send out materials that your donors actually enjoy reading. That's it. Really.
It's easier than you think and it's exactly what Tom Ahern shows you how to do in his bestselling book, How to Write Fundraising Materials that Raise More Money: The Art, the Science, the Secrets.
Every time you mail a punchless fundraising letter, or submit a grant proposal that's dull, or produce a newsletter as dry as lint, you're leaving money on the table. Which is, well, nutty because it doesn't cost you a penny more to create materials that will motivate your donors.
If you've attended one of Tom's perennially sold-out workshops, you know he's a master at offering concrete tips and strategies you can put to use at once. Like right now.
You already have the donors; now inspire them to give more generously by putting into practice what Tom, the recognized authority in the field, prescribes in How to Write Fundraising Materials that Raise More Money. It'll be the easiest 15 percent increase you've ever notched.
About the Author
Tom Ahern is recognized as one of North America’s top authorities on nonprofit communications. He began presenting his top-rated Love Thy Reader workshops at fundraising conferences in 1999.
Since then he has introduced thousands of fundraisers in the U.S., Canada and Europe to the principles of reader psychology, writing, and graphic design that make donor communications highly engaging and successful.
He founded his consulting practice in 1990 (www.aherncomm.com). His firm specializes in capital campaign case statements, nonprofit communications audits, direct mail, and donor newsletters. His efforts have won three prestigious IABC Gold Quill awards, given each year to the best communications work worldwide.
Ahern is also an award-winning magazine journalist, for articles on health and social justice issues. He has his MA and BA in English from Brown University, and a Certificate in Advertising Art from the RI School of Design. His offices are in Rhode Island and France.
Table of Contents
- Why communicate? To spur action
- Setting your expectations: Be pessimistic
- The almighty predisposed
- Making it interesting (mandatory)
- Secret to response: The offer is king
- Why your fundraising communications fail to get the results you want
- Writing your strategy
- On the delicate subject of committee & board approvals
- What is branding, really?
- Warning: You are an intrusion, too
- What interests donors
- Being donor-centric
- Communicating on all four wavelengths
- What the Amiable side responds to
- Anecdotes bring your successes vividly to life
- What the Expressive side responds to
- News story ideas: A checklist
- Sorting the wheat from the chaff
- What the Skeptical side responds to
- Honesty and information: Reassuring the skeptic
- What the Bottom-Line side responds to
- The emotional imperative
- Emotional triggers
- Choosing your emotional twin set
- Answering the most important question: Why your organization matters
- Aren’t sure why you matter? Here’s a tip
- AIDA: Formula for an elevator speech
- Making your case, step one: Collect information
- Making your case, step two: Answering the donor’s three big questions
- Making your case, step three: Telling your story
- The smallest case there is: Your tagline
- Headlines: The critical importance of
- Making a weak headline strong
- Finding the angle
- Write for browsers
- How to keep them reading
- Do the “you”
- The dangerous “and”
- Will you ever be a good writer?
This article is excerpted from How to Write Fundraising Materials that Raise More Money, by Tom Ahern, ©Emerson & Church, Publishers. To obtain reprint permission, call 508-359-0019 or email us.
On the Delicate Subject of Committee and Board Approvals
Moments like this happen quite often in my workshops.
I’ll mention something that industry professionals pretty much all agree on. The perfect example: Repeated tests find that four-page letters used to acquire new donors typically out pull one-page letters, all else being equal. Counter-intuitive? Absolutely. But much of direct mail practice seems at first glance contrary to common sense.
A hand goes up. It’s a worried query from an attendee who smells trouble ahead. “My board chair says he throws away four-page letters whenever he gets one. So he’ll only approve one-pagers. What should I do?”
Show him this chapter.
Hope that reason prevails.
Be well trained. Know what you’re talking about.
And realize that his opinion is entirely personal and applies nowhere outside his head.
Humans have this bad habit of generalizing from the particular. “I don’t like it” gets all too easily confused with “No one will like it.” It’s bad logic and even worse statistics.
Beware who gets approval rights
With fundraising communications, there are only two states of being: “I know what I’m doing” or “I don’t.”
Professional staff members are supposed to be the in-house authorities. They should know what they’re doing.
They either have the technical expertise themselves to write and design fundraising materials … or they hire that expertise from a freelancer, consultant, or vendor.
Or they have on hand expert books that demonstrate how to do these things the right way. I can’t think of any topic in fundraising or advocacy communications that can’t claim a book written by a credible expert.
It’s unusual, though, to find that kind of professional expertise in board or committee members (or in many executive directors, for that matter).
Yet we often cede the weighty responsibility of “blessing” fundraising communications to higher authorities: boards, committees, the executive director. That’s irresponsible. Uninformed opinions and second-guessing can, without malice or intent, easily ruin competent work and undermine your ability to raise money. When untrained people have the final say on what goes out the door, you run a serious risk.
Let’s look at why.
Instincts aren’t enough
No one is born with an instinct for correctly judging direct mail.
Even long-time direct mail professionals, people with hundreds of properly conceived and executed efforts in their memory banks, admit they’re never quite sure if a new appeal will succeed or not. Which is exactly why these same professionals test so religiously and rigorously.
And that’s just direct mail. There’s a body of knowledge behind every professional communications piece, whether it’s an annual report, a newsletter, a case statement, an emailed appeal, or a website. Acquiring that body of knowledge requires training.
Effective fundraising communications – solicitation letters, promotional ads, case statements and the rest – are in my opinion 99% science and 1% art. If my assessment is right, training and experience, clearly, make all the difference.
An untrained person might (unlikely, but possible) guess a few things right out of the 25 basic things one needs to know to succeed in the tough business of communicating with strangers. But those many other mistaken guesses will kill your chances.
Non-professionals use the wrong criteria
Inventor Henry Ford once observed, “If we’d asked the public what they wanted, they would have said, ‘faster horses.’”
That profound remark also neatly makes a point germane to our discussion: People work with what they know. Ask an untrained person for an opinion, and you’ll get one, particularly if it’s about the written word. But the context and references on which that opinion is based will be personal, not professional.
When an untrained person says, “I like it,” it’s a matter of taste.
When a trained person says, “I like it,” it’s a matter of judgment, using recognized and proven criteria.
In a professional approval process, personal taste is irrelevant and often misleading because it tends to favor the safe over the bold.
The problem with committees
Though I’ve known exceptions, committees, by their very nature, tend to make things worse.
They feed each other’s doubts. They’re protective of the organization’s image. They try to sand off all the edges and find a solution everyone agrees is inoffensive. But during the “blandifying” process, they often also scrub away the interesting bits: the bold, the controversial, the crazy surprises.
Advertising legend, David Ogilvy, once wrote, “You cannot bore people into buying your product; you can only interest them in buying it.”
Sound advice, widely applicable. You cannot bore people into paying attention. You cannot bore people into becoming supporters. You cannot bore people into acting on your behalf.
Ask any good marketer: Bold outsells bland every time. And that goes for fundraising, too. In the bowels of the direct mail industry, there’s even a belief that if no one complains, you haven’t pushed hard enough. If no one calls your office to say, “I just got your latest fundraising appeal. How dare you show a picture like that!”, then you’re not close enough to the edge and your income will suffer.
Unfortunately, that’s not how humans on committees tend to behave. Risk aversion is more likely the order of the day. In his classic, Confessions of an Advertising Man, Ogilvy flashes this dismissive rhyme:
Search all the parks in all your cities;
You’ll find no statues of committees.
But, as I say, I have known exceptions.