Times are hard, so let’s talk about raising money. I’ve unleashed the Due Diligence Test Panel on 8 fundraising emails and webpages for water-related causes. In today’s post, I’ll compare the one they like best to the one they like the least.
The runaway favorite in the group was a web page from Charity:Water. Although it’s just a few years old, this group puts a highly compelling appeal to prospective donors. Panel members described the group’s pitch as “heart warming,” “caring,” and “moving” and gave it top marks on nearly every criteria. At the back of the back was the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy. Board members described the group’s pitch as an “honest effort,” but also “confused” and “low priority.” The DDTP gave the Conservancy’s appeal below average marks on nearly every criteria.
In a nutshell, here are two key differences between the strong and the weak piece:
Emotion vs. Intellect. Charity: Water appeals to the heart, packing its fundraising page with words like “clean,” “safe,” and “family.” It features pictures of smiling people. Whose heart wouldn’t melt at the prospect of bringing that much joy to someone for just $20? In contrast, the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy appeals to the head. It’s full of words like “positive momentum” and “full docket.” Yawn. Here’s how those numbers play out (click the graph to see it in full size):
Specificity vs. Vagueness. Charity: Water tells you how much money it wants you to give, and what it will do with it. The land trust asks for your support, but relies on last year’s accomplishments to suggest what it might do with your money. Here’s how those numbers play out (click the graph to see it full size:
Click the links below to see the original pieces and the full Due Diligence Test Panel feedback on them:
Charity: Water
Southern Oregon Land Conservancy
So here’s a question on my mind. Is Charity: Water’s program inherently more appealing to donors than Southern Oregon Land Conservancy’s? Or do they just do a better job making the case for their work?
P.S. The true purpose of the DDTP is to evaluate draft fundraising and other materials – so you can fix them! Once I launch the service, you’ll get your feedback in confidence.
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
great product and great post!
Eric – You’ve hit on an important point in your question. I do think Charity:Water’s program is inherently more appealing. I think any charity that aims to save lives and especially the lives of children is going to be more attractive to more donors than a land trust. Since I am involved with land conservation, I would love to see you compare fundraising appeals for different land trusts against each other. There are some people whose top priority (or one of their top priorities) is conserving land. I want to know how to appeal to those donors, and it doesn’t help me much to know that saving children is inherently more appealing to more people than saving land. Thanks.
Wow. I’m flattered. I think.
OK, so I’m happy that *someone* reads our emails.
But honestly, Eric, how could you possibly compare these two organizations head-to-head? The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy has 3 full-time staff members, compared to at least 15 (FIFTEEN) at Charity:Water (check out their fancy website)!
It would be disingenuous, to say the least, to suggest that we have even one-tenth of the sophistication of the charity with which we have been compared. As the development director, I am in charge of creating and maintaining relationships with major donors, managing all correspondence with all members, creation, design, and launch of our new website at landconserve.org, publishing and printing of newsletters and all direct mail pieces, oh, and in my spare time, I’ll throw one of these emails out to my members (and, apparently, my critics).
Let’s compare apples to apples next time, Eric.