
Charitable donations come from the heart –not the head, not the wallet. The World Wildlife Fund knows this — and so it seeks donations for its work in Mozambique by telling the story of one person who has benefited from it. That’s why the Due Diligence Test Panel described the email with words like ”heartful,” ”emotional” and ”hopeful.” They rated this fundraising email the second best of the test batch I had them review.
In contrast, the North Florida Land Trust is trying to impress donors with a summary of its accomplishments (550 acres protected in 2009) and the size and urgency of the threats. This is exactly the story that grantmakers want to hear — but everyday citizens find it hard to wrap their hearts around that. The test panel described the Trust‘s email with words like “important,” but also “lacking” and “confusing.” They rated this piece second from the bottom in the test batch.
Here are some interesting numbers — look at the big deficit WWF overcame in one key area to clinch second place. That’s good environmental writing right there (click the image to see it in full size).

Environmental Writing Takeaways
Do you believe that WWF‘s work in Mozambique is inherently more appealing than the work of the North Florida Land Trust? I don’t. Not by a long shot. WWF’s email is fundamentally about fishery management council meetings, which have brought tears to my eye on more than one occasion… of boredom. WWF’s email is the work of a crack fundraiser: someone knew that human angle was in there, they sifted through a pile of field reports until they found it – and omitted the rest.
WWF spun a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so to speak. And the North Florida Land Trust has done the opposite — hiding a potentially moving story behind faceless issues and numbers.
My land trust clients tell me that landowners often cry when they sign the documents that will preserve the family farm forever. They are overcome with sorrow at the thought losing the land to ugly modern development. They speak movingly of preserving their family heritage and knowing that their grandchildren will hunt the fields, fish the creeks, and make pies with apples from the orchard. Saving the farm is gesture of hope for the future, a chance to make a difference that will last for generations. And for good measure, the whole community benefits from their choice.
But you wouldn’t know any of that from reading the North Florida Land Trust‘s email, now would you?
Click the links below to see the original pieces and the full Due Diligence Test Panel feedback on them:
World Wildlife Fund
- “Showing Some Heart for Lake Niassa” fundraising email
- Due Diligence Test Panel critique of this email
P.S. The true purpose of the DDTP is to evaluate draft fundraising and other materials – so you can improve them! Once I finish testing and launch the service, you’ll get your feedback in confidence. Not on the blog for all to see.







Again, Eric, you have chosen to glorify the likes of a multi-million dollar charity at the expense of a poor and under-funded land trust. What, exactly, is the point here? Are we all supposed to re-imagine our brand to be more like the big guys? Not gonna happen. Be better fundraisers? Sure, we could all use a little help.
But this smacks of elitism.
Yeah, I want to better connect with my constituents. Why, then, must I be more like WWF? Much to be learned from the big guys, as they are quite effective and successful. Why not compare the big dogs head-to-head and the little dogs-head-to-head. This analysis is useless otherwise.
But, Michael, this is not about being like the big guys at all. Your size does not affect the way you frame your communication. Your brand remains the same whether you get people’s attention through a success story or statistics. Of course, there is the challenge of having no success story to tell …