Hope or fear… picture a year-end appeal.
The goal isn’t met. Time is running out. Your appeal urges donors to act right away, or bad things may happen.
“Can’t we keep it upbeat? You know, focus on the good stuff?” a board member will ask. “We know that’s more effective, right?”
Well… I don’t think I do know that.
My instinct says when the need is urgent, or a deadline is approaching, sharing the urgency with donors is what will work. Think about hope or fear. Fear can be a powerful trigger. But so can hope.
And often, what’s meant by “upbeat” is “all the things I like about our organization” – that is, organization-focused copy.
But my instinct certainly isn’t infallible. I decided to see if there were any answers out there.
The answer is: it depends.
Timeline and urgency
Researchers looking at purchasing habits found that negative messaging was more effective when there was time pressure to buy. Positive messaging worked better when the purchasing decision wasn’t driven by a deadline or scarcity.
So perhaps negative messaging – for instance, “if we don’t raise $250,000 by June 30, our preschool reading program will have to be cut” – might work better. There’s a deadline (urgency) and there’s the fear of loss.
(I’m not sure there’s much good fundraising that isn’t urgent. If money isn’t needed, why ask?)
A consistently negative framework can backfire, though.
Donors need to feel they’re making a difference. If all the messages they receive are negative, they may feel their gifts are in vain. It may be that negative messaging is most effective in attracting donors – and after that, you should be sure they get a more varied diet.
Guilt and absolution
Guilt is often seen as a negative emotion. So fundraisers are often wary about it. They’re afraid of being manipulative.
But we experience guilt for a reason. It’s useful. Guilt is tied to empathy – an emotion we definitely want to encourage in donors. When we feel guilty about injustice in the world, or about our warm home and full pantry, guilt can move us to do something about it. Acting in a positive way – by making a donation – absolves us of our guilty feelings. At least temporarily.
Focusing on good news – like for instance, a list of your organization’s accomplishments – doesn’t have the same emotional heft. There’s not much to draw donors in.
Why not have it both ways?
You’ve probably spotted a pattern here: negative and positive work best together.
I’ve written about emotional triggers before. Balancing emotions can be powerful.
So to return to my first example, we could keep the urgency. We could keep the fear of program cuts and the deadline.
Then we pair it with the positive.
That’s the donor.
The donor’s power to change the forecast. Her control over how the story ends.
That’s great balance – urgency and salvation working together.
What do you think?
Photo by George Hoden
Mary, thank you for the interesting post. It reminded me of two things:
First, Richard Viguerie, a direct-response fundraising pioneer and major expert, has said that people would rather give to FIGHT AGAINST something rather than FIGHT FOR something. In other words, one could ask prospects to donate to help provide food for the homeless. Or, more effectively, one could ask prospects to help end hunger among the homeless. It’s a somewhat subtle difference that can yield significantly different results.
Second, I’ve always liked the construct of problem-solution with the donor being the solution. For example, I once had a suburban hospital client that was seeking to raise money for additional MRI units. We tested a positive message that simply talked about the mini-campaign to acquire the new MRI machines. The other message mentioned that the wait time for an MRI was up to three weeks with the alternative being a 50-mile drive to another facility; then, the prospect was asked to donate to the effort to acquire the new MRI equipment. As you might have guessed, the second group far outperformed the first. The second message set up the problem: dangerous wait times or long commute. In effect, people were asked to fight against the long wait time. And the donor was made the hero because s/he would be making the new MRI equipment possible. Like you said, it’s about fear, urgency, and the donor being the hero.
Great examples, Michael! Thanks!