The Way We Learn to Write Is All Wrong for Fundraising

It makes absolutely no sense to base a fundraising appeal on a logical argument. But you see it all the time. And that’s because many appeals of this type follow a format that comes from how most of us were taught to write. 

While it might seem like a good idea to write an appeal in this way, it often turns out to be a bad idea when it comes to engaging donors. Take this example. It’s from a nonprofit advocating for criminal justice reform. It starts:

Dear [Firstname],

One mistake or bad decision shouldn’t define someone’s life or value.

But for 78 million people with an old arrest or conviction record, a mistake can mean a lifetime of barriers to getting a job or accessing safe housing.

That’s why at [nonprofit], we and our more than 400,000 members are advocating for law changes that will expand access to stability and economic opportunity for the millions of Americans locked out of opportunity due to an old record. But we can’t do it without your help.

The basic format here is deductive reasoning. You start with a general premise, then move to a minor premise, then on to the conclusion. That’s how we were taught in school to construct an argument. Here’s an example of deductive reasoning. 

• Premise: All fruits are grown from flowers and contain seeds. 
• Premise: Tomatoes are grown from flowers and contain seeds. 
• Conclusion: Therefore, tomatoes are fruits. 

Another way to think of it is how most of us were taught to write a paragraph. There’s a topic sentence, followed by supporting facts or arguments, and then the conclusion. In school, you write paragraphs this way because that’s how you get a good grade on a term paper. 

You see this same format in the fundraising letter noted above. There’s the general premise, which is a general statement: “One mistake or bad decision shouldn’t define someone’s life or value.”

There’s the minor premise: “But for 78 million people with an old arrest or conviction record, a mistake can mean a lifetime of barriers to getting a job or accessing safe housing.”

Then, the conclusion, which, for the purpose of fundraising, is essentially, “Therefore, donate.” Here’s the conclusion: “That’s why at [nonprofit], we and our more than 400,000 members are advocating for law changes that will expand access to stability and economic opportunity for the millions of Americans locked out of opportunity due to an old record. But we can’t do it without your help.”

This deductive-style approach seems to make sense to the nonprofits producing these kinds of appeals, because, after all, that’s how you write. And that’s how the nonprofit staff approving the fundraising were taught to write, so that must be how the copy is supposed to be.

Granted, the logical approach seems reasonable on the surface. It does seem like you’re leading the donor by the hand through your argument, and then bringing them to your conclusion: “Therefore, donate.” 

But there’s a big, glaring problem.

Fundraising copy is nothing like a term paper, not even remotely. A fundraising appeal is supposed to be a personal letter from one concerned individual to another about an issue. It’s about emotion, empathy, humanity, values, morals and more. If you try to stuff that into the mold of logic, it doesn’t work. And there’s a good reason for that.

People don’t make decisions based on logic. They make decisions based on emotion, especially the decision to give. That’s why an appeal based on logic is never going to be as persuasive as one based on emotion. You can’t argue or debate someone into donating. 

If you try, as with the example above, you end up with fundraising copy that’s cold, unfeeling, unempathetic and most likely unmotivating. 

Does this mean that fundraising copy never uses logic? Of course not. Some of the reasons to give could be straightforward, logical arguments, like “reducing homelessness makes our city move livable for everyone.” Or, “Eliminating barriers to employment for people with criminal convictions means they become tax-paying residents.”

But these arguments wouldn’t be the basis of the appeal and certainly not the lede. You risk losing donors right at the beginning. It’s far better to try and find the emotional core of the cause you’re raising funds for, and present that to donors. Then you’re connecting with donors on the basis of empathy and shared values. When you do, you’re bypassing the donor’s natural reaction to logic — which could be a skeptical, “Is that really true?” — and going straight to the emotional heart of the matter. Because that’s where connection, compassion and persuasion happen.

The preceding content was provided by a contributor unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within may not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of the staff of NonProfit PRO.