Urgent, Not Hysterical

Well, I don’t know but I’ve been told
the streets of Heaven are lined with gold.
I ask you how things could get much worse
if the Russians happen to get up there first?
Wow-wee. Pretty scary.
—Bob Dylan, "I Shall Be Free"

That song was written at the height of the Cold War and skewered the over-the-top paranoia that was, at the time, a dying holdover from the McCarthy era.

It came to mind again during the government shutdown. In the heat of the moment, various players in that debacle used some pretty ridiculous scare tactics to try and convince voters that one side or the other comprised a bunch of dangerous, radical crackpots.

Extreme, apocalyptic rhetoric gets attention. But is it good fundraising?

The definitive answer is … not usually.

For advocacy groups appealing to die-hard partisans, rants about the diabolical intentions of the other side will ratchet up the emotions of people who already agree with you. And can generally motivate them to give. But they won’t help you broaden your support.

For example, most moderate people recognize “the war on (women) (freedom) (the middle class)” for what it is: political hyperbole. And they tune out before the rest of the message has a chance.

Worse, they see it as an insult to those who have been touched by the horror of real war.

Yes, most fundraisers know that advocacy appeals perform better when you have an effective enemy to blame things on. But the best of them also know the critical difference between urgency and hysteria.

Urgency is: “We’re facing a dire situation that’s getting worse by the day. The other side is about to gain the upper hand, and the results could be disastrous. Your support can make all the difference. It will help us mobilize the forces of good and keep the world safe for democracy.”