Have you gotten a really beautiful appeal recently?
It could be an email, or it could be a fancy direct mail package.
I have to wonder about their effectiveness. So many are pretty to look at, but not moving. And that’s a big problem.
Shiny postcards on heavy paper. Four-color imagery and brand-specific fonts. Reverse type (because it looks so cool). Tiny print that doesn’t fight the overall loveliness of the design.
It’s all gorgeous. And every time I see one of these packages, I shake my head. Something tells me these fancy pieces are not doing what their senders hope they’re doing.
Here’s an example. I made a gift. Then instead of a thank you letter, I received a glossy postcard and a tax receipt.
It wasn’t personal. It wasn’t meaningful.
To me, the message was loud and clear. “Personalized letters are so much work! We’ll print tax receipts and stick an expensive postcard in the envelope instead.”
Easier for the staff, to be sure. But it felt like a slap in the face to me.
To be fair, the fundraising staff may have loved that beautiful postcard. They may have lavished attention on creating it.
But nothing they did had anything to do with me and my gift.
I suppose something was better than nothing. So many organizations never even thank their donors!
Don’t fear the ugly.
Here’s what the experts say. Ugly can work. Homely can feel more authentic. Someone focused on the “look” of a piece might miss function for form. Instead, let the message lead – make the design serve it.
Jeff Brooks wrote about ugly fundraising and Tom Ahern amplifies those thoughts here. My friend Adrian Salmon wrote a good piece here. They’re all worth a read.
Too much focus on a beautiful or clever piece can lead you down a dangerous path. I learned that lesson years ago.
Here’s the story: I worked for an arts organization. We were building an annual giving program. Each year, we’d plan the annual appeal around a brochure. (By the way, stop doing an annual appeal.)
We’d beg designers and ad agencies to donate their services. Then we’d spend weeks working up a concept. Sometimes it was really fun. Sometimes it was hard. Always, it was a time-suck.
Then we’d stick a letter in an envelope with our masterwork and send it.
We got decent results. But we weren’t factoring in the time and expense we spent on the piece. Our decent results were masking the better results we could have had.
Then I cut the brochures. Started focusing on the letter. Surprise! Results improved. And I had money and time to spend on more solicitations. Guess what that meant?
Make personal the priority – not just beauty.
Here’s my thinking on why those pretty brochures and postcards don’t work.
They put up a wall between the organization and the donor.
Imagine you get two pieces of mail today. One’s a beautiful greeting card. Inside, there’s a pre-printed message and a signature.
The other is a hand-written note on a plain piece of paper – let’s say lined notebook paper. It’s not pretty. But it’s written to you. It’s personal.
Which one would make you feel more?
Fancy stuff can be a way to avoid real emotion. You can get lost in the fun of creating something beautiful. But none of what you’re doing is about your donor. It’s a substitute for authentic feelings.
They’re usually all about the organization and not about the donor.
Trevor O’Donnell offers a great illustration in this piece about arts marketing. These fancy pieces are about celebrating the organization. Staff and board feel great about them – because these brochures are a reflection of them. But our job isn’t to make ourselves feel good, is it?
They can send the wrong message about how you spend donors’ money.
I’d sure have preferred a simple, heartfelt letter instead of a beautiful postcard. I couldn’t help feeling my donation was wasted.
And I’m not alone. Donors do wonder. Sometimes you see that when they ask you to send less mail. It’s not that they don’t want to hear from you. It’s that they’re worried about the expense.
They’re giving to get something done!
Good design absolutely has its place.
Don’t get me wrong – design is important. Just be sure the designer understands fundraising and most importantly, donors. Want to see an example of really donor-centric design? Check out my friends at Agents of Good.
Mary, I congratulate you for writing another great post! You inspired my own post, “Perfect is the Enemy of Good” (http://wp.me/p1h0KY-Mc). In my article, I tip my hat to you and encourage my readers to checkout your piece.
By the way, the movie nerd in me needs to also thank you for using an image of Theda Bara. She was a queen of the silent film age whose stardom helped launch the studio 20th Century Fox. Sadly, most of her films have not survived.
Thanks very much, Michael! To be honest, her photo just grabbed me and it had to be used. She must have been something! I appreciate your comment and your mentioning my post. Thanks so much!
I really could have done without this image coming up on my computer screen at work. I don’t think it’s justified in the context of your article either (I mean, if you think through the implications…. why are you using an image of an objectified woman to make a point about fundraising appeals being ‘too pretty’ to work effectively? Suggesting that she is ‘too pretty’ to raise money well? )
Thanks
Claire, I’m sorry to have offended you. Honestly, I liked the photo because I liked the challenge in her eyes. She’s bold. Also, being nearly 100 years old, the photo was fun and funny to me. Besides, pretty CAN work – if it’s in service of fundraising, not instead of or before it.
Well, Claire’s comment brought out my film-nerd side again.
I was not offended by the photo of Theda Bara for a number of reasons:
First, I did not find anything objectionable with the picture. It comes from the 1917 mainstream film “Cleopatra,” not some tawdry little movie. While the image reveals some skin, it’s certainly not pornographic. And I’m not about to get paternalistic and start suggesting what women should or should not wear.
Second, while an argument can be made that Bara was objectified, she certainly wasn’t exploited. For the film in 1917, she earned a rate that would take Joan Crawford until 1932 to earn!
Third, Bara herself never felt exploited or anti-feminist. Here’s how she described herself, “I have the face of a vampire, but the heart of a feminist.”
Fourth, Bara thought the roles she took were important: “During the rest of my screen career, I am going to continue doing vampires as long as people sin. For I believe that humanity needs the moral lesson and it needs it in repeatedly larger doses.”
[Note: Bara’s use of the word “vampire” is not used as we have come to think of it (i.e.: Dracula). Instead, read it as “vamp.”]
Was the photo appropriate to the post here? I suppose an argument could be made either way. However, I think Mary’s position makes sense and is certainly not deserving of a reprimand.
For my part, I’m glad people get to see a photo of one of the silent film era’s leading stars in an image from one of her greatest films.
Thanks, Michael. I’ll be honest, I didn’t know much about her when I picked the shot. But she grabbed me. And so I thought she might also grab some readers. Thanks for all that information – I like her even more now!