Short term value vs. long term loyalty

Posted by Michael Johnston on August 13th, 2005 at 08:34am

If you peek back down a few postings, you’ll see my colleague George Irish quoting an article by Bill Toliver. I won’t argue that we tend to emphasize or highlight ‘emotion’ in direct response fundraising, but I’m not sure we’re damaging long term value and relationships with donors by doing that. I would love to see Bill and/or George come up with some constructive testing models to delve more deeply into the issue. I remember a few years ago when I worked on two competing direct mail packages for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The package I worked on played on the ‘emotion’ of the feeling of not having a roof over your head vs. a more earnest, intellectual approach to the issues of displacement. The emotional package took three hours to write — it went right to the virtual heart of the matter. The other, was shopped through committees of very educated people, for six months!

Lo and behold, the emotional package has found a lot of new donors — and is the control in a number of countries — and those donors are loyal and committed. And who are these people being duped by emotion — highly educated men and women — with a high percentage with graduate and post-graduate degrees. How did these highly educated people join the cause of UNHCR? Through emotion. How are they communicated to from that point forward with consistent, text heavy newsletters? Through intellect.

A few years ago, a Scottish colleague had a bunch of fundraisers stand up and say: ‘Reach the heart, to reach the head, to reach for the wallet’. I think it’s a fun reminder that all of these things work respectfully together.

Until George and Bill can lay out a fundraising test that shows a more intellectual approach can engage and keep donors more profitably I’m gonna keep sending out emotionally charged letters and emails — and then lay on the thick and nerdy communications.

Under fundraising