BlueFrog Creative

Poor Mrs Draper (the second)

If you're watching Mad Men series five, you'll know that Megan Draper has joined the creative team. In the time since we met her, she has demonstrated many skills – not least with her performance of zou-bisou-bisou – but it appears she's not yet taken seriously in the offices of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.

She's the lowliest member of creative team and therefore gets the lowliest job: the coupon.

Forget the lawn-mower incident in series three, this revelation was genuinely shocking to me and, I'm sure, any other direct marketeer. How can the coupon be the lowliest job? It's like saying the donation form doesn't really matter and should be delegated to the most junior creative.

One man who knew the power of the coupon was Howard Gossage. Mark's recently blogged about Gossage's advert for The Sierra Club here and, since then, lent me his copy of Changing the world is the only fit work for a grown man. Reading it, it's clear that if Mrs Draper wants some career-enhancing advice, she should take a trip away from Madison Avenue and visit Gossage's idiosyncratic agency in San Francisco. 

Gossage realised that a coupon wasn't just a coupon – it was a means of making a connection with a customer or donor. And he used coupons in many innovative ways.

Before he saw the light and used his talents to promote good causes, Gossage worked on commercial accounts. His adverts weren't just about selling - they were about building communities. Decades before Facebook, Gossage referred to consumers as 'Friends'.

Here's an example of how he built communities, via coupons, for Whiskey Distillers of Ireland.

You may notice that this advert starts mid-sentence. That's because Gossage takes up where he left off in the previous week's ad – confident that his community of Whiskey lovers was following the story. Here he offers readers a choice of badges, defining their relationship with the Whiskey Distillers. In another advert, he announced a party would be held New York to celebrate the visit of the distillers. Thousands of people used the coupon to write in and request an invitation.

Here's another example:

This advert generated the single biggest response to an advert in The New Yorker and offered one of these objects:

With no known name for it, Gossage then struggled in the advert to think of a name for his new invention.

And here's my favourite coupon of all, where Gossage offers to send you a sample of another revolutionary innovation for Fina 'pink air'.

I wonder what kind of envelope he used to send out the samples! 

When you look at this work, it's no surprise that Gossage started to use his talents for charities and good causes.Today, we'd call this prospecting and, most likely, use e-mail or text to make it easy for people to flag up their interest. In Steve Harrison's book, Professor Pabst of the University of San Francisco sums up the power of Gossage's approach.

'Howard put together organic communities, he let people want to opt in. He understood that we all want to belong to something, some kind of club'

That's why Gossage's ideas are so relevant to charity fundraising, still today. If you're looking for inspiration, I throughly recommend reading up about Gossage.

Changing the world is the only fit work for a grown man, by Steve Harrison

The book of Gossage, by Howard Luck Gossage

Today I’m hoping to offer illumination…

…and some visual splendour.

But first an explanation.

I meant to write this post a few months back after seeing a lovely exhibition on illuminated manuscripts at the British Library in London. Somehow, I never quite got round to it and might have forgotten about it entirely if it weren’t for the fact that, just yesterday, the subject came up in conversation with my colleagues, Mark and Richard.

We were talking about design for on-line and off-line and the inspiration that can be drawn from illuminated manuscripts.

Yes, I realise that sounds a little obscure, but the techniques used in illuminated manuscripts are more relevant than you might think and go beyond the exquisite lettering that draws your eye to the opening sentence. Or so I found out at the British Library exhibition.

On display were illuminated manuscripts like these made for English Kings and Queens through the ages.

Look at the amazing layout of this page.

Even with several artists at work on one manuscript it could take months – or even years – to complete one. I like to think about what happened the moment an illuminated manuscript was put it to the hands of its new owner.

Remember, ‘illuminate’ means to ‘light up’ – and that’s exactly what these amazing artists did to their texts.

When, say, King Henry VIII looked at his new book what did he see?

He saw his crest on each page, he saw his name in the text, his face in the pictures. It showed him he was the most important person in the world.

   

 King Henry VIII opens his psalter to see himself (on the left) pictured reading his new book (an early example of postmodern self-reference?)

The Alfonso Psalter was made for Prince Alphonso. Had he lived to see it, he’d have seen his crests on the page of his manuscript.

There were some great examples in the exhibition where the personalization in the text had to be hastily adjusted when a King, Queen or heir died some sort of unpleasant medieval death during the creation of the manuscript. Their name would have to be hastily scratched out and written over.

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. Obviously, this is a wonderful opportunity to share some incredibly beautiful images with you. But it is also about technique.

If your donors are the most important people in your world, show them.

The same techniques apply.

• Show them an appeal that is for them and them alone.
• Let them see themselves in the appeal that you send them.
• Put them at the centre of the action that is taking place.
• Illuminate – ‘light up’ – your appeal.

If you’re interested in reading more about illuminated manuscripts, here are a few links.

I liked this article by Tom Jeffreys  and British Library blog post with the story behind the Alfonso psalter. 

The Third Big Lesson In Fundraising Copy

Intrepid copywriter, Margaux, blogs about just how hard a copywriter's life can be! 

 (Part 2)

If you read my first blog post last November, you may be asking yourself ‘if that was the first lesson, where’s the second? Have I missed something?’

You haven’t.

The truth is, the second big lesson in writing copy was so depressing and defeating, I went into hiding. I’ve barely spoken to anyone about work in months, and when I was asked how things were going, I knew I wasn’t being very convincing when saying everything was fine.

And I couldn’t write to you about it. You should never be insecure on the Internet. Be happy, be excited, be angry, be passionate – but keep your negativity offline. Honestly, I was embarrassed.

Because the second lesson I learned…was that I was actually shit.

Last November, I’d thought I’d figured it out. I thought writing for fundraising was a puzzle I’d finally solved. (After only a month? Who did I think I was…) Making sense of the letter was an important first step. But it really was only the beginning.

After a few weeks living under the illusion that I was the second coming, our creative director actually assigned me some real work. Appeals, newsletters, legacies, concepts – they were a massive reality check. And thus began months of my downward spiral into purest misery. I felt like I was back at square one and I just couldn’t get it right.

The second lesson you have to learn if you want to be a great copywriter is that WRITING FOR FUNDRAISING IS HARD. I really don’t think people can understand how hard it is unless they’ve been through the process of learning to be great.

And there aren’t all that many truly great fundraising writers. There’s an awful lot of mediocrity in our industry, and I don’t think many of you will disagree with that. But even on my most difficult days (especially on my most difficult days) I feel privileged beyond reason to work for a woman who demands I be great. Our creative director doesn’t let me get away with anything. And this is what brings me to the third big lesson in writing for fundraising.

Anyone can be a great writer if they work hard enough, for long enough.

The hardest part of the second phase of my writing career has been not living up to the demands of greatness. Each day I try to be great and each day I struggle. I can’t overstate how difficult it is to write something original, emotional, surprising, relevant, and on top of all that – something that will make a person reach into their wallet and hand over their money after reading your words.

And so the transition into phase three has been a smooth one. I only noticed the change today, in fact. After a few reassuring conversations these past few weeks, I’ve come to the realisation that I may be shit now, but I won’t be shit forever. If I work hard, practice, put in the hours, listen, and practice some more, I can be great too. And so can you.

The third big lesson in fundraising copy is that greatness is possible. So cut yourself some slack, honey.

Harnessing the power of the underdog

One of my favourite podcasts is WNYC's Radiolab. If you haven't heard it, a treat is in store – you can download the episodes here.

I was listening to 'Games' recently, which included a very interesting discussion about sport, but also about a great deal more. So if you're not that interested in sport, bear with me a moment or two.

It's the fifth round of the FA cup and a third division team is drawn against a premiership giant – who do you support?

Unless you're a fan of that particular premiership club, there's only one choice. The neutral gets an enormous kick out of an upset, like when Shrewsbury Town knocked Everton out of the Cup in 2003 – a fairy tale win.

On Radiolab, the discussion moved away from sport, to what sport represents – stories that offer us an emotional journey. And funnily enough, most of us choose the same journey.

We support the underdog.

Why?

A group of psychologists has been investigating. In tests, 80%-90% choose to support the underdog and the results remain broadly the same whether you are talking about competing sports teams, politicians, businesses or even landscape painters.

Landscape painters?

Yes. The same applies.

Groups were given a painting and asked whether they liked it. It was presented as either the work of a successful, established landscape artist or a starving artist striving to make their way in the world – guess which they favoured?

So the vast majority of us root for the underdog, the struggler, the striver - the next question is why?

That's when it gets really interesting.

As I suggested above, one theory is based around emotional journeys. Consider what's on offer if you back the favourite. If they win, it's nothing more than what you expect. But if they lose, you'll feel horribly disappointed.

The emotional journey that goes with supporting the underdog is different. They're expected to lose, so no worries if that happens. But if they win? Wow! You get an incredible high.

The relevance to fundraising is fairly apparent. If people naturally crave an emotional high, that's certainly what we can deliver. Tom Ahern made a great comment on Mark's last blog post making just that point last week.

But the second theory of why people support the underdog is even more pertinent.

It's based around the idea that we all have a natural sense of justice. We want people to have an even playing field and, if they don't, we want to correct that by supporting the underdog and redressing the balance.

Finally, there's the thought that we connect with the underdog because if they can make it, so can we. 

When it comes to fundraising, it's exciting to think we can offer the donors the chance to:

• Connect with the underdog/a need
• Take an emotionally rich journey
• Root for someone or something
• Be on the side of justice and fairness

To illustrate this, I've chosen my favourite (under)dog advert for Dog's Trust. No wonder it's been the banker for years.

 

What can you learn from Elizabeth Taylor; the world’s most successful conman and, more generally, letters of note?

One of my favourite websites is www.lettersofnote.com. Do you know it? The editor, Shaun Usher, describes it as ‘an attempt to gather and sort fascinating letters, postcards, telegrams, faxes, and memos…Fakes will be sneered at’.

Most days there’s a new addition – a new piece of inspiration. Today, I’m going to share a few of the exhibits I like the most.

You think Elizabeth Taylor can tell me about writing? Really?

I’ll admit to being surprised, but this delightful letter to a fan shows the late Elizabeth Taylor had some decent advice for copywriters everywhere. Take a look (you can see the original exhibit here).

 

 

Let's extract some of that excellent advice for fundraisers:

• Write a personal letter to one person, not many.
• Address them as a friend – they support you after all.
• Tell a story.
• Share the little details that make it interesting.
• Create a connection (Elizabeth offers to let Jean know when her book is out).

 So what’s this about a conman?

I'm guessing Victor Lustig gave himself the title of ‘Count’. He was a pretty effective conman. He sold the Eiffel Tower (twice) for scrap metal despite, of course, never owning it. These are the ten commandments he wrote for wannabe conmen (see the exhibit here) 

1. Be a patient listener (it is this, not fast talking, that gets a con-man his coups).
2. Never look bored.
3. Wait for the other person to reveal any political opinions, then agree with them.
4. Let the other person reveal religious views, then have the same ones.
5. Hint at sex talk, but don’t follow it up unless the other fellow shows a strong interest.
6. Never discuss illness, unless some special concern is shown.
7. Never pry into a person’s personal circumstances (they’ll tell you all eventually).
8. Never boast. Just let your importance be quietly obvious.
9. Never be untidy.
10. Never get drunk.

 Reading these set me to thinking – perhaps with a few small edits, might these make some decent rules for a fundraiser?

How many would you keep? I’d definitely hold onto:

1. Be a patient listener (it is this, not fast talking, that gets a fundraiser his or her coups).
2. Never look bored.

As for the rest, it would be probably wiser not to comment!

What a letter can do?

More seriously, www.lettersofnote.com includes letters that are hugely inspiring. Like this one, which I quite often show people. You can find it on the site on a post called 'Goodbye Son', together with a transcription.

 

 

This letter was written to three-year-old Christopher by his dying father. Somehow, every time I read it, my eyes go blurry and water starts coming out. For me, it's the measure of what a letter can do, right down to the power of the handwritten annotation – 'your dad says, I love you!'

Full circle

I like Letters of Note because it's not about fundraising, but also, as you've seen, it is. You see things that get you thinking. You find ideas that you bring back into appeal or fundraising ideas. But then a few months back, Letters of Note really did become about fundraising when I saw a tweet linking to www.unbound.co.uk

 

 

Unbound is a site where people pitch their books and, if you’re interested, you can help them get published. Here’s the page where the Letters of Note book was pitched (it’s now fully funded). My interest in Letters of Note came full circle when I ended up supporting the book, which I am really looking forward to getting hold of.

NB You can find further inspiration on www.letterheady.com and www.listsofnotes.com

 

Not about politics – honestly.

This week, I've been working on an engagement piece for donors that includes a questionnaire.

I've written here before, with scepticism, about what charities learn from sending tick box style surveys to donors. So when working on a piece like this, I'm always grateful for a little help from our in-house researcher, Amber. She advises on how many questions to ask and how to formulate them in a way that gets a meaningful answer.

But this week – hopefully for the first and last time in my life – I've had Lord Ashcroft on my mind.  

I've been thinking about the YouGov poll he commissioned, which phrased the question about Scottish independence in three ways.

1. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

2. Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country?

3. Should Scotland become an independent country, or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?

If you don't know the results of the poll, now's the time to make an educated guess as to the outcome…

 

 …Well, version 1. got the strongest vote in favour of independence (41%). The results to version 2. were not significantly different. But when you compare the answers to version 1. and 3., you do see changes. 33% chose 'become an independent country', with the yes vote dropping most amongst men (more details here).

So what does all this mean?

People are agreeable

Apparently, or so it says here, questions using the phrasing 'disagree' or 'agree' tends to favour the 'agree' side. I'm assuming this is because (most) people prefer being agreeable, over being disagreeable.

People fear change?

The change of results with version 3. of the question is widely attributed to using the word 'become' rather than 'be'. 'Become' apparently emphasises change and people don't like change. It's also been pointed out that the third wording of the question was the only one to refer to the United Kingdom.

Beware of questioners with a vested interest

Wording poll questions is clearly a dark art, especially when you consider that Lord Ashcroft was asking a set of questions to illicit the response that he wanted. I'm making the not unreasonable assumption here that anything that calls into question the independence referendum is in Lord Ashcroft's interest, given his political stance. And this article includes some concerns about the methodology of the survey.

Leave no mistake about what you mean

So let's get back to what's relevant to us as fundraisers, it's no surprise that subtle changes in wording can have unexpected consequences. So if you've got something to say to a donor, I'm in favour of saying it loud and clear.

This piece of work from last year demonstrates that.

Adopt a Word is a fantastic fundraising idea from I CAN, which you might have read about previously. Adopting your favourite word for yourself or a friend is incredibly engaging, but a challenge remains. How do you get word adopters to then give their support to the charity? A similarly difficult job would be moving people from owning a colour to supporting UNICEF regularly. It's a tough job, but here's what we tried to do. 

We sent word buyers and word gift recipients a new word – one which described them and they could keep forever.

 

 

This certificate differs from the Adopt a Word one, as it comes from Matty, a boy who struggled to learn to communicate. His dad explained that, with I CAN's help, the change in his son had been phenomenal - and that was one word we wanted I CAN's phenomenal word adopters to keep.

What donors need, as demonstrated by The Blood Donor

I don’t remember how old – or rather how young – I was when I first watched Hancock. I vividly remember, though, whom I was with. My dad. He wisely considered Hancock’s Half Hour to be a key part of a child’s education and at some point we enjoyed The Blood Donor together.

A couple of weekends ago, I heard a clip of The Blood Donor again. Instead of the usual excerpt (That’s very nearly an armful), a different bit was played. One where, having donated, Tony Hancock asks for a badge.

‘What a great example of what donors want,’ I thought to myself. ‘I must listen to The Blood Donor again.’

When I did, I was amazed by what The Blood Donor includes. It covers everything that’s on this diagram, but in a far more entertaining way! 

 

In fact, listen to The Blood Donor and you’ll find everything you need to know about donors – their motivations, their needs and what will make them give more. I could only find the radio version on You Tube (click here). But here are the key points summarised.

Donor need – to combat helplessness

Whether they’re giving money or blood, donors need to feel there is something that their gift will do. Just look at why Hancock turned up in the first place.

 

Hancock: Good afternoon, nurse. I’ve come in answer to your advert on the wall next to the Eagle Laundry in Pelham Road…

Nurse: An advert? Pelham Road?

Hancock: Yes, your poster, you must have seen it…

…There’s a nurse pointing at you – a Red Cross lady I believe, with a beard and a moustache. Pencilled in, of course…You must know it, it’s one of yours…It says ‘Your blood can save a life’

Donor need - to help

This is the most straightforward need of all. We humans are hard-wired to help each other. Here’s how Hancock puts it.

Hancock: No man is an island, young lady. To do one unselfish act with no thought of profit or gain is the duty of every human being – something for the benefit of the country as a whole. ‘What should it be?’ I thought, ‘Become a blood donor or join the young Conservatives?’ But as I’m not looking for a wife and I can’t play table tennis, here I am.

[Laughter]

To grow

This is the need, which is probably the hardest to grasp hold of, but the blood donor gives a couple of great examples. The first is the badge. Hancock wanted to show to others that he’d become a blood donor – it had added something to his sense of self. (He was pretty keen on the tea and biscuits to, but that’s another matter entirely.)

But Hancock gets something unexpected out of giving blood. He finds out that he’s has rare blood group, which also makes him see himself differently (and as more important).

To entertain

Well it’s fairly clear that Hancock became a blood donor to entertain – and not just us. He gets to rub shoulders with a not very Scottish doctor, discovers he has a rare blood group, eats tea and biscuits and goes home knowing he’s helped save a life…

…except, of course, that’s not enough for Hancock. He wants to know whose life he’s saved. And don’t all donors want to know how their money has been used? 

 

HANCOCK (on phone): Yes it is me again. Has it gone yet? Have you used it? My blood! Well you’ve had it for 24 hours now. You said it was rare! Surely somebody must be after it. Of course it’s something to do with me. It’s my blood. Well alright. Was. But you can’t expect my interest in it to cease just because you’ve got it. 

I don’t want to spoil the ending if you haven't seen or heard The Blood Donor before, but let’s just say it also shows that giving to charity is a mixture of altruism and self-interest.

So here’s a quick recap of what we learn from The Blood Donor

• Donors give to meet a set of needs – to help others, combat feelings of helplessness, to grow and for entertainment.

• Donors’ interest in their money doesn’t cease once you’ve got it – they want to see the difference that their money makes, before they give again.

• Donors give in part to help others, and in part as an insurance policy.

But you don’t need to take my word for it, just click here to enjoy the whole episode. There are probably more fun ways to learn about fundraising, but they don’t spring to mind immediately.

 

How to make your own luck

At the end of last year, I took a trip up to Leeds for the CASE conference. Adrian Salmon and his colleagues at Leeds University led a really great presentation about maximising donor engagement. Adrian summed up with six take-away points, which apply across the board in fundraising, so I asked if I could share them with you.

 Here goes:

 1.    Yes, we were lucky, but it’s about making your own luck

Adrian described how a donor had progressed from making a one-off gift to becoming a major donor. Not all donor relationships work in such a satisfying way, but as it says above – you make your own luck. In this case, the team at Leeds were working in a really interesting way. They were segmenting their file and analysing their results very effectively, but they were also looking to build personal relationships with individuals with the potential to give more.

2.    Don’t ignore your outliers, & talk to your colleagues!

The individual concerned didn't actually fit the profile of existing major donors, but that didn't stop the team at Leeds engaging with him personally. That's what I really like about their approach. They used their data to identify good major donor leads, but were also prepared to look outside – to outliers – and find out what was motivating them to give.

3.   Listen hard!

Listen hard to your donors – what better advice can you get. Only today I was discussing with a colleague what this really means. You might think this is covered by an annual questionnaire to your donors. But I think there's an important distinction to draw between what your donors are saying and what they are telling you.

A good researcher will dig below the surface and draw out these conclusions for you. Alternatively, you need to look at what your donors' behaviour is telling you – do they give to appeals? Do they take part if you ask them for a campaigning or another non-financial action?

4.   Give even ‘modest’ donors the chance to feel involved

Have you sat down recently and thought about all the ways donors could get involved with your cause - without giving money? It's a great way of building loyalty and ultimately keeping older supporters involved who may not have cash to spare, but would consider legacy-giving. There are obvious opportunities in inviting donors to events, but here are a couple of nice examples:

Save the Children UK ran a lovely campaign a couple of years ago asking supporters to knit wooly hats for babies around the world.

Charity, Clearvision, ask donors if they will make a tactile book for blind and partially sighted children.

5. Think about legacies all the way through, not just at the end!

From 101 Fundraising

Whatever you think about donor pyramids (and there's plenty of debate, summed up here on 101 fundraising), they can lead to linear kind of thinking – that a donor will move through certain stages towards a legacy. Of course, actual behaviour is far less easy to map and Adrian makes the point that you should always be thinking about creating pools of prospects.

6. Even if it only comes off rarely, keep giving yourself as many opportunities as possible to make your own luck!

And if it's not too late, that sounds like a very good new year's resolution.

Thanks to Adrian and his colleagues at Leeds for those six points.

 

Learning About Donor Appreciation At IoF London

Another post from Bluefrog copywriter, Margaux Smith.

 

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Institute of Fundraising’s London conference for two days. A big thank you to Mark and Aline for sending me – I do love the job perks! I always learn so much at conferences but more importantly, am always re-fueled to think more deeply about how we raise money for our causes.

And this was no exception. I spent two days being inspired by some truly great fundraisers. But there’s one standout thing that’s been running through my mind in the days since.

Alan Clayton was the plenary speaker on day two and, shockingly, was the only speaker who made my cry. That’s really saying something since I’m very easily moved. Not enough emotion at IoF? Perhaps.

But Alan’s talk sure carried the emotional punch. Good thing since it was about the importance of emotion in fundraising. Because I was too busy feeling his words to take any notes or live tweet, I’ll have to draw from memory.

What I really took away came from an image that looked an awful lot like this:

These are people. The people who will always give to your organization (even when you mess up, they are often forgiving), the people who might give to your organization, and finally the people who will never give – you’ll notice this is the largest portion.

Alan’s point was that many charities focus almost exclusively on the Always and the Never. They spend a lot of time, money, and resources listening to complaints and feedback from their most loyal supporters (which I’m not convinced is a bad thing) and then on trying to recruit those who will never give – these people have no connection to your cause.

His argument is that we should be focusing almost all of our fundraising on the Maybe group. These are the people who have given once or twice – they clearly know about your charity and aren’t against the idea of giving, but you haven’t connected with them on a meaningful level…yet. This is where your potential lies. These are the people who are waiting to be convinced.

It makes me think about our donor files. When we do warm mailings, we’re satisfied with 8 to 20% response rates – that’s expected. But what I see is 80 to 92% of people who have given to us before that are now bored with our message, feel undervalued, are unconvinced, or are generally apathetic*.

So what can we do to bring these people in?

We can start by appreciating each and every effort they make to connect with us. Thank them for that £5 gift and show them what it accomplished. The importance of this can’t be emphasized enough. Because if you can make them feel wonderful about that first gift (and second, and third), no matter how small, a bigger gift and a more loyal supporter is likely to come. It’s not rocket science, it’s simply about treating your donors in the way you’d wish to be treated. 

We need to stop seeing barriers and start seeing opportunities.

 

* I realize this is a bit harsh. Some people only give once a year, others are having financial difficulties or other issues that prevent them from giving but I hope you can see my point.

If you haven't seen this clip before, prepare to be appalled...

  

But if you are one of the 2 million + people who has already heard this man's delight at the financial melt-down, you might be surprised by what I'm going to say next.

There is one important point to extract from his otherwise appalling views.

We may not be as bullish as traders, but as fundraisers we have to believe it is still possible to bring in the money that the good causes we represent need – more than ever.

As I've mentioned before in this space, I think some of the best fundraising is done in emergencies. And since the news from the outside world is predominantly doom and gloom right now, I thought I'd share two inspiring examples of successful fundraising in desperate times. 

Great Ormond Street Hospital 

You may have heard the current financial outlook described as the worst since the Second World War, so here's some amazing fundraising from precisely that time. 

I wish I knew more about this story but here's what I've been able to piece together. In (I think) 1940, Great Ormond Street Hospital was bombed. As you can hear if you click here, large parts of the building were left in ruins, equipment was destroyed and patients had to be evacuated.

What would you do if you had to try and raise the money needed to rebuild the hospital?

Well, this is the part of the story I love. Whoever those fundraisers were, they looked around at the rubble and found a solution.

To raise money, Great Ormond Street Hospital sold matchboxes of the debris. Each matchbox bought by a member of the public brought in funds for rebuilding work. I wish I had a picture of one.

As you can see here, a book was also opened and circulated, with messages of support coming from the Royal Family, politicians and celebrities of the day.

Ai Wei Wei

Example number two is contemporary and comes from China. As you may be aware, artist Ai Wei Wei has incurred the displeasure of the Chinese government. Having been detained for 81 days, he was presented by the state with a tax bill of 15m yuan – a sum he can't possibly pay.

So what's happened since then? Well, Ai Wei Wei describes it as 'a beautiful thing' and I agree. Well-wishers have put themselves at risk by coming forward to help Ai Wei Wei pay the bill.

As you can see from these great photos from the Guardian, donations have come in unusual ways.

 

People have screwed up money into a ball or made it into a paper aeroplane to get it over the wall into the grounds of Ai Wei Wei's studio.

 

Other courageous individuals pass on their donation covertly.

Ai Wei Wei may not be a fundraiser, but donors are thanked in a memorable way. Volunteers send out some of his ceramic seeds.

 

To sum up

Here are two examples of great fundraising in worse situations than we face. So chin up! Keep doing good fundraising.

How can you show your donors that you love them?

Good fundraisers love their donors. And showing your supporters that you think they are tremendous, extraordinary human beings is:

a. courteous

b. a step towards building loyalty...

c. ...and generating more funds (also known as good stewardship) 

An answer to how you might do this arrived in my letterbox a few days ago in the form of the Not On The High Street Christmas Gift Guide. It's an unlikely source of inspiration, but believe me, it's worth a look. Because it shows the kind of gifts that your donors are likely to be giving to each other as a mark of love and appreciation.

And surely there’s some learning we can take from that.

Here’s the front cover, with the baubles giving you as clue as to what follows…

 Christmas just isn’t complete without a set of personalised baubles to hang on your tree (£58 for a set of four if you’re interested).

Click here for the catalogue and you'll find as I did, page after page of personalised gifts.

 Personalised glasses cases…

 

Personalised garden crates…or whisky bottles...

Even personalised wooden apples*...

I could go on. But let’s get back to what we could do. Because we can use exactly the same techniques to thank donors and build their involvement with our cause.

I'll admit to so far having shared some of the more absurd examples, but here are some pieces that easily convert over to fundraising.

A personalised book – imagine in this case that it shows the donor all the great things they have helped achieve.

 

Likewise, it wouldn’t take much to re-write the poster below to thank a donor for long-standing support.

In fact, look through the catalogue and you'll find tons of great ways you could use personalisation, using nothing more than data you already have – your donor's name.

And if you work for an animal charity, it's time to make sure you've captured the names of your supporters' pets. Because it appears animals also like to have their name on things – a hen called Hector models here. 

If you're new to this blog and are wondering why I'm recommending personalisation, you may like to read this post about donor needs by Mark. The pieces I'm suggesting could certainly be engaging, offer growth and help combat helplessness. I'll share an example later this week. 

 

*If anyone can find a more absurd personalised gift, I will happily send them an unpersonalised prize. Entries to me by 30/11/11. Judged by the Bluefrog Creative team. Do your worst.

The First Big Lesson In Fundraising Copy

Here's a great post from Bluefrog copywriter, Margaux Smith.

 

As the newest copywriter at Bluefrog, it still feels ridiculously novel to refer to myself or be referred to as a writer, but I adore the feeling. Writing is somewhat of a new dream for me – it only first occurred to me as a possibility about a year ago. But I know some day I’ll be able to combine it perfectly with my most fundamental goal – to protect animals from cruelty. This is the beauty of fundraising copy.

Writing has definitely not been an easy ride so far though. I’ve only just moved here to London this past July from Canada, where I was a fundraising grad student studying at Humber College in Toronto. The last bit of my degree involved taking a fundraising internship, and after figuring out exactly what I wanted, I contacted Aline over Twitter and asked for a job (people love that bit of the story, because it actually worked).

In my first few months as an intern and then as the Bluefrog receptionist, I was able to prove that I knew the basics of raising money for charity, and more importantly, that I could write conversationally. I didn’t actually even realize the latter was a skill until recently. It was just something that came from being ‘trained’ for thirteen years on ICQ, AIM, MSN Messanger, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Gmail, Friendster, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Wordpress, and countless message boards. I’m a bit too old to be considered a ‘digital native’, but digital-since-fourteen turns out to be pretty close.

Learning how to communicate in this way marks a major departure from the dry, academic writing we learn in school. But it also leads to a massive disconnect in how we perceive our skill. I’d done horribly at academic writing in my formal education, and therefore believed that I couldn’t write. And now I’m a professional writer. Go figure.

 

"Well, let me tell you a little secret: You started out a great writer. But as you went through school, and were conditioned to think of writing as writing rather than as simply communicating, you got progressively more self-conscious about it—and progressively worse at it.

"The best writers are the ones who are able to completely ignore everything they’ve been taught about writing, and instead get on with the job of just telling."

D Bnonn Tennant

 I wish someone had told me that in high school (or even university).

 

When I actually made the official move up to the creative floor just over a month ago, I experienced a few weeks of intense struggle. And I mean the kind of struggle where you’re calling your mother nearly in tears every night. Looking back, it really only did last about three weeks, but it felt like a lifetime. I had completely lost whatever ability I’d had to write. Every idea I would hand in would come back with the same disheartening (but honest) comments:

 

‘Try starting again’, ‘These sentences feel clumsy’, ‘You’re trying to say too much’, or ‘This doesn’t make sense’.

 

Aline was perfectly nice about it but she was right – it was all pretty crap. I felt completely overwhelmed by the pressure. I knew that the previous two copywriters hired before me had both been let go after only a few months because they hadn’t been able to grasp the fundraising style, and it seemed that it might be completely beyond me as well. Aline would edit my letters (a nice way of saying re-write) and I could see the obvious vast improvement, but I just couldn’t seem to make letters like that come out of me. I couldn’t help but consider the fact that maybe I just wasn’t good enough to be a real writer.

Every day I prepared myself for the pain of being fired. Aline was being so patient and nice but I knew that could only last so long. Before long, she’d get fed up with having to tell me the same things over and over. It was a stressful time, but I realize now that the stress was entirely self-induced.

 

Thankfully, in mid-October, I got a break for a week and went to the International Fundraising Congress in Holland. I knew this was exactly what I needed. I love working at Bluefrog and am learning skills that will be completely invaluable to my ability to raise money in the future, but I was also finding myself drifting away from the day-to-day fundraising involvement that I’d had for a solid year at Humber. I was getting so focused on writing style that I was losing sight of the big picture and my enthusiasm for charity. I knew that IFC would force me to take that step back and get my head back around why I’m doing what I’m doing.

And it did. IFC gave me everything I needed it to. It reintroduced me to the big picture and reaffirmed my love for the profession (and the people). But something else seems to have happened and I didn’t realize it until well after I’d gotten back to London.

 

I finally ‘got it’. All of a sudden, I could write a fundraising letter.

And it was actually so simple. It turns out I was just getting in my own way. I had felt like I had to write something that had never been said before to bring a fresh new voice to the company. I was terrified of not being original. In fact, I had refused to even look at the material my coworkers had written because I was scared I’d copy their style.

Something must have clicked subconsciously during the conference because I came back and things just started falling into place. I sat down to write a thank you letter with my brief, the appeal pack, and the charity’s last thank you letter and I read them all. I drew from them until I had something new that was my own. I worried less about my voice and more about the charity’s voice. I made it simple and easy to follow, but still emotional and donor focused. And I finally handed something in and heard ‘Perfect!’

I’ve sure got a whole lot more to learn, of course, but at least I feel like I’ve gotten over the first hurdle. But some day, I will write something that has never been said before. For now, I’ll work on perfecting the tried and tested methods. I think you have to really understand the fundamentals before you can properly flip them on their heads.

 

Funnily enough, this past weekend I was re-reading something I’d written seven months ago and I found this:

 

“Being creative doesn’t mean you have to invent something no one has ever thought of before.”

I’d heard it - had even shared and taught it, but I guess I didn’t really learn it until now.

Are you this blog's IR (Ideal Reader)?

First, an explanation of the question.

Look to the right and you'll see a far from exhaustive list of books I think are helpful to creatives working in our field. It hasn't been updated for a while but, soon, I'll be making an addition.

It's Stephen King's On Writing.

For over a year, Stephen King played with the idea of producing a book about writing. What stopped him was the thought that, somehow, a popular writer like him had no place talking about the craft of writing.

Now, if that were true, it would only be a million times more so for someone like me who writes Direct Mail. Except, of course, there are some very useful things we can learn from a man who has written over fifty best-sellers. Because the skills you need to do one kind of writing often transfer well to another.

So here's a Stephen King idea that, with a tweak, works well for fundraising – the ideal reader.

He says:

'Someone – I can't remember who, for the life of me – once wrote that all novels are really letters aimed at one person. As it happens, I believe this. I think that every novelist has a single ideal reader; at various points during the composition of a story, the writer is thinking, "I wonder what he/she will think when he/she reads this part?" For me that first reader is my wife, Tabitha.'

Charity fundraising copy is certainly best written to one person. In this post, Mark suggests it's your grandmother. But really it's the individual you visualise once you've taken on board everything you know about your target audience. And it might suit you to write a person you know who fits the bill. 

You've probably heard that advice before, but how does it actually help?

Well, for a start it should stop you writing a sentence like this:

Which is an awful start to a letter any way, but you'd start by at least changing it to:

Stephen King explains another role that the ideal reader has:

'IR will help you get outside yourself a little, to actually read your work in progress as an audience would while you're still working. This is perhaps the best way of all to make sure you stick to the story...'

Or in our case, not a story but an objective to raise money.

Thinking about how your IR/donor will react to your writing is a great way of editing your work.

Stephen King again:

'Try to imagine if he or she will be bored by a certain scene – if you know the tastes of your IR even half as well as I know the tastes of mine, that shouldn't be too hard. Is IR going to feel there's too much pointless talk in this place or that? That you've under-explained a certain situation...or over-explained it.'

Stephen King is lucky. His ideal reader is real, and can also become his first reader. The person who gives you feedback on what you've written. Choose them carefully – they could be another writer, another fundraiser, a donor, but not just anyone. You need someone who is likely to tell you something useful.

"If you're writing primarily for one person besides yourself," says Stephen King. "I'd advise you to pay very close attention to that person's opinion...And if what you hear makes sense, then make the changes. You can't let the whole world into your story, but you can let in the ones that matter the most. And you should."

And that's a good way to sum it up. If you're writing fundraising copy, you're writing for your donor. Pay close attention to what they say. Let them into your world.

There's actually loads more useful stuff in Stephen King's book, so I'm planning a second helping sometime soon. If you can't wait, you can get a copy here.

 

PS In answer to the question above, this blog started out being for the person I used to be – working charity-side without an agency. But along the way, it changed mainly as a result of exchanging ideas with a few people via twitter. So, dear reader, this is what I think I know about you:

• Fundraising is far more than a job
• You ask questions
• You seek answers in places other people aren't looking 

 

A 'nudge' for you

If you were listening to Broadcasting House (Sunday morning, BBC R4), you’ll have been part of an experiment.

You’ll have heard a chorus or two of ‘There’s no one quite like Grandma’ by the St Winifred’s Choir and you’ll have been asked to obey whatever urge popped into your mind.

If you know the song, you’ll be aware that the most likely urge on hearing it would be to cut off your own ears.

This was not the intention of the experiment. It was testing whether listeners would be ‘nudged’ into calling their grandchildren, when they heard the chorus ‘Grandma, we love you’.

To be fair, this was an experiment dreamed up by the producers of the programme, rather than one of the authors of Nudge theory. When they spoke to Richard H Thaler, co-author of Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, he wasn’t at all impressed with their methodology.

But he gave an interesting insight into what ‘nudging’ is really about.

Nudge theory has gained a great deal of currency amongst governments world-wide which are looking for ways to change the behaviours of their populations (that’s you and me, by the way). The relevance to fundraisers is fairly obvious, as we too are looking for effective ways to encourage donors to do what we want them to do.

So what did Richard H Thaler say that you might find useful?

First, a clarification. 'Nudging' has nothing to do with subliminal messaging like playing ‘There’s no one quite like Grandma’. It’s not even about subtlety or tricking someone into an action. One of Thaler’s favourite ‘nudges’ is the signs on our streets telling us to look left before crossing.

Nudge is about getting the right outcome.

To create effective 'nudges', Thaler looks at choice architecture – within what you are offered, how can you steer someone to the right outcome?

He mentioned an interesting test they are currently doing on what kind of letter you should write to a person who owes the treasury money. The most successful approach they have developed has a 10% higher yield on payment than the others they’ve tested.

(I'd make a bet that a fundraiser could have written that letter for them). 

Thaylor didn’t want to give away too much but he told us:

• It’s not about being threatening. It’s most about being nice.
• The winning letter uses social pressure – telling the non-tax payer that most people do pay their taxes.
• They make it as easy as possible to make payment. 

It's not rocket science really is it?

When asked to boil down 'nudging' to its essence, Thaler said:

If you want someone to do something, make it easy.

I don’t think this advice will come as anything other than a reminder (or a nudge) to fundraisers. We’ve been trying to make it easy to give for years. The great thing that online and mobile technology gives us is making giving as simple as pressing a button.

This is the first text giving advert we did – ten years ago already!

Mark created the £1 pack more like 20 years ago to make giving easy.

 

How can Charles Dickens help you use statistics?

Charles Dickens was a fundraiser – did you know? He may have poked fun at our profession in Our Mutual Friend, but he was rather skilled when it came to generating support for his chosen cause, The Hospital of Sick Children (which became Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital).

Founded by Dr Charles West, the first hospital for children in the UK depended on voluntary donations. Funds were raised by subscriptions, donations and fundraising events, the most important of which was an annual dinner.

When Charles Dickens did a reading and a rousing speech at a Christmas fundraising event, he raised enough money to buy a new property for the hospital – more than tripling its capacity.

Not bad. It’s a shame we don’t know what he said. We do know what he wrote in support of the new hospital though.

In April 1852, Charles Dickens published an article called ‘Drooping Buds’, which appeared in his magazine ‘Household Works’. Excitingly, you can see the original scanned in here.

Its subject is child mortality, but that’s an example of jargon which Dickens took care to avoid.

Instead he works hard to make the facts meaningful to the reader. As you’ll see, he starts by using statistics to drive home the high loss of life. For every one hundred children born, only sixty five remain after eight years.

“Of this great city of London – which, until a few weeks ago, contained no hospital wherein to treat and study the diseases of children – more than a third of the population perishes in infancy and childhood. Twenty-four in a hundred die, during the first two years of life, and during the next eight years, eleven die out of the remaining seventy six.”

Well, that’s fairly convincing. But Dickens doesn’t leave it there.

“Think of it again. Of all the coffins that are made in London, one in every three is made for a small child: a child that has not yet two figures to its age.”

He starts talking about little coffins – a horrifying image. And still he pushes it further, imagining the words of a lost child.

“…I,” said another shadow, “Am the lame mis-shapen boy who read so much by this fireside, and suffered so much pain so patiently, and might have been as active and straight as you, if anyone had understood my malady…”

So what does Charles Dickens teach us about statistics?

• Numbers can be a powerful way of providing evidence of need or success.
• But what do the numbers represent? Charles Dickens asks his readers to ‘think again’ and realize that each death is a small coffin.
• Finally, as the third quotation shows, it's one child’s story that reaches the reader emotionally.