At least once per year, I tried to do something that will help refresh my thinking when it comes to fundraising. I found that recently when reading What Donors Want and Why (2019) by Tom Ahern.
Ahern came to my attention because I somehow got on his email list, which he uses to send fairly over-the-top emails aimed at pitching his workshops. While I’m normally skeptical of anybody who appears to overpromise while pitching paid content, I decided to dig a little by checking out one of his books from the library.
I’m glad I did.
What Donors Want and Why doesn’t have a traditional book structure. Rather, it contains 46 chapters over 160 pages with bite-sized nuggets broken down into broad categories.
I found a few of the suggestions/claims a little hard to digest, but the lessons reminded me of a few things I knew, but didn’t emphasize enough, and also contained some new ways of looking at things I hadn’t previously considered. Most, though not all, of the lessons were backed up by statistics Ahern had gleaned from various sources.
Here are my eighteen takeaways from reading the book.
- Fundraising is a sales job where you’re offering emotional gratification in exchange for money. That means your number one job is keeping the customer happy so they’ll come back again. Too many nonprofits don’t pay enough attention to first-time donors in how they thank/engage with them, leading to a lot of donor churn (you replace donors with new donors) rather than donor loyalty. Ahern cites a study that shows that a prompt thank you phone call to first-time donors leads to a 30% increase in subsequent giving!
- Donors are older. While there may be other reasons to involve younger people as volunteers, you should recognize that in the United States it’s older adults who make charitable gifts, with 68% of all charitable donors older than 54 and older donors giving much larger amounts. Older donors are also more likely to be loyal than younger (who’re more likely to switch around their giving from year-to-year). Recognizing this, you need to adjust your content (language) and your format (e.g. larger font sizes).
- Bequests can make an organization. Organizations don’t put enough attention into legacy marketing, especially aimed at long-time donors who’ve given smaller amounts. A lot of larger legacy gifts will come from those giving $35/year for 10+ years. There are basic tools you can use to increase the odds these people will include your organization the next time they update their will.
- Good fundraising writing isn’t necessarily good writing. You are writing for people to comprehend when skimming. You should be repetitive. You should be provocative. You should flatter. Board members often read good fundraising letters and object. Yet, board members are decidedly not the audience for mass fundraising appeals. Only once in a blue moon will you have a board member with actual expertise in fundraising writing whose opinion you should consult.
- Be donor-centric in your communications. You should be talking more about your donors and less about your organization. You want them to see themselves as part of the story rather than just writing a story about the organization. The word “you” should show up many more times than “we” in fundraising letters. Donors should be front and center on the home page of the website. Thank yous should be focused on what donors are accomplishing, not the organization. (Ahern cites a study showing that flattering donors works even when its perceived as insincere!).
- Raising awareness does not raise funds. Investing funds in building your brand in general is almost always a waste compared to spending that same money on more direct fundraising methods. Lots of research suggests people don’t actually have to have heard about your organization before donating if the fundraising vehicle is well done and they care about the mission.
- Donors are more likely to rally behind preventing the loss of something they care about than promoting some new thing they value. They are more emotionally connected to organizations they see as fighting for them and what they value. Yes, there’s a role for hope (a powerful emotion) and cooperation. But lots of evidence suggests that people’s actual behavior when responding to fundraising appeals places higher value on avoiding loss/anger (as opposed to an equivalent gain) and becoming part of some fight they care about.
- Avoid the “curse of knowledge.” Ahern cites the book Make it Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, who argue that those well-versed in a topic are often least well positioned to communicate effectively to the masses. We use jargon. We get hung up on details. We write about complexity when donors want and need a broad-brush approach. We care too much about data. We try to cover everything we do since it’s all connected in our mind, yet donors are more likely to respond to an appeal focused on one big thing.
- Donors are ignorant and that’s okay. Ahern quotes a researcher who surveyed 17,000 donors to a variety of charities and concluded: “Donors are staggeringly ignorant about the causes they support.” The researcher didn’t mean that negatively! The researcher was just noting that charitable giving is mostly driven by emotion, not knowledge.
- Don’t write your fundraising appeals for everyone. Figure out who your most likely donors are and write with that audience in mind. What do they care about? What do they need? What promise might stir them to action?
- Beyond that, you should also segment your appeals (both letters and emails), sending one message to potential first-time donors, one to current donors, and a third type to lapsed donors. First-time donor requests need to provide more information about who you are, what you want, and what they should trust you. Renewals should spend more time focusing on your gratitude for their past gifts and what those gifts have accomplished. Mushing both those messages together into a single appeal is a recipe for poor results when it comes to both audiences.
- The donor communication cycle consists of asking for help, thanking for giving help, and reporting back on the good things done due to their help. Limp thank yous and inadequate reporting can neuter even the best subsequent asks
- Based on research he cites, you can’t just rely on email. To maximize results, even taking into account the cost, you should layer in some postal mail. That could be an annual report or impact report. It could be a 2-3 times/year more traditional newsletter. You will make back the added expense many times over.
- There is fierce competition for the attention-span of donors and people read what interests them. If you don’t grab them in the first couple of sentences, there’s high odds they don’t continue. One sentence opening paragraphs should the norm. Use short sentences and action verbs that can be comprehended instantly rather than thought about. One test he recommends: is it at an 8th grade level of reading comprehension? (Note: both Word and Googledoc have built in features that will provide the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score).
- Stories, not statistics. For individual donors, statistics do not matter, stories do. Studies drawing blood from people show that after experiencing narrative, there is an oxytocin burst that predicts how much people want to help others. This wasn’t found when data was presented. Don’t assume data you that your board and institutional donors care about matter to your typical donor.
- Make your ask big, bold, and up-front rather than burying it. Anybody skimming the letter should know very clearly what you’re asking them to do.
- For mail, don’t be afraid of using 4-page fundraising letters (2 pieces of paper on both sides) rather than just one piece of paper. He cites a variety of evidence behind this conclusion. A further resource he recommends is Mal Warwick’s How to Write Successful Fundraising Appeals.
- Ask more often. Out of fear of appearing to ask too much, most organizations don’t come close to maximizing the number of asks they can make before results drop off. Donors say they only want to be asked once per year, but that’s not how they actually behave. Ignore any isolated complaints you receive as irrelevant.
While I hope these short-hand versions of Ahern’s lesson are valuable, my quick & dirty interpretation is not a substitute for the real thing.
So if you find the above intriguing, you may wish to get the book for yourself. It’s a quick 1-2 hour read.
And it could very well be that one of his courses would pay for itself many times over with enhanced fundraising.