Take a look at a return envelope that recently came in the mail from Easter Seals. It's a donor cultivation piece (likely for a lapsed donor) that features a full-size wall calendar for next year.

But there are several interesting things about this lowly return envelope worth looking at:

It's a window return envelope.

That's probably because the piece is raising funds for a local affiliate of Easter Seals, but it's probably produced on a national level, which makes such an elaborate pack affordable. The return address for the donation is on the reply coupon, and there are likely many different local affiliates mailing it.

The first time I was involved in a mailing like this, I really worried that requiring the donor to place the reply device so its address would show through the window would hurt response. So we tested; it didn't hurt.

Some fundraisers use a window return envelope even if they don't have multiple return addresses. They do it to "force" donors to include the reply device, thus reducing "white mail." Also not harmful to response.

It's not postpaid.

Some people would say that breaks a rule -- that you should use a Business Reply Envelope to improve response. Guess what: It makes little difference whether you include a BRE or require the donor to find and affix their own stamp.

It has a "branded" security pattern.

Fun, huh? Since this mailing no doubt uses a very high quantity of return envelopes, it probably added little cost to manufacture them, making it easy to print on the inside and outside. Many years ago I did a test of a normal return envelopes against one with a security pattern. The security pattern did slightly better.

State registrations.

You're required to include those annoying state registration statements for all the states you mail into. But you can put them anywhere. The back of the return envelope is a great place to put it.

The return envelope may seem like a boring throwaway part of a direct mail pack. But it's worth spending a little time on. There are things you can do with it that make a real difference.

You might be surprised what works to raise funds online.

In short: Simpler is more effective.

Here are three tests from NextAfter that just might make you want to rethink how you do online fundraising:

Test #1: Simple and personal

How a radical redesign of an email appeal and donation page affected donor conversion rate.

This was a "radical redesign" of an email and its landing page, including:

• Much simpler email -- text only instead of the more designed control that had logos, a photo, "Donate Now" buttons
  
• More personal tone in the email that addressed the donor directly and colloquially.
  
• Simplified landing page: No photo, less design, overall less content.
  

Result: 272% increase in donor conversion. At statistically valid quantity.

Test #2: Person-to-person subject line

How a more personal subject line affects open rate

Control subject line: "Make this bold statement"; open rate, 16.9%.

Test subject line: "Checking In"; open rate, 33.6%.

That's nearly 100% increase in opens.

Test #3: Nix the video

How having a text based donation page and email vs video affects donor conversion rate

In the digital world, it's all about the power of video, right?

Maybe not. Look at this test:

Control landing page led with a 3-minute video that made the case for a donation. Conversion rate: 0.65% conversation

Test landing page: Text based (basically the same message as the video. Conversion rate: 4.1%.

That's a 527.54% improvement.

What does all this tell us?

Something like this: Keep your fundraising emails simple, uncluttered, and personal. Make them feel like they're from a person, not an organization.

Here are the 5 most-read Future Fundraising Now blog posts in the month of November:

1. The case of the irrelevant fundraising envelope that really works

2. Your fundraising might just be "white noise" for donors

3. Is 2022 a bad year for fundraising? What about 2023?

4. How to use photos in fundraising [PODCAST]

5. What happens when you "dumb down" your fundraising
   

Tagline: Since 1954.

Possibly the worst nonprofit tagline. I know why this is the tagline of choice for so many nonprofits. They want to show they've been around, that they know what they're doing, that they can be trusted.

Those things matter. But they aren't interesting. Worse, they don't point anyone in the direction of action. It's just chest-thumping of an especially dull variety.

If you have a nonstarter of a tagline and you want to make it better, here are some steps you can take:

1. Decide the audience for this tagline. Your primary audience might be donors, but it might be ticket-buyers, patients, the people you directly serve, or others. Or some combination of two or more different audiences. Put it in writing and think carefully about what your organization means to the audience you intend to reach.
   
2. Make it about what your audience can do. Not about some attribute of your organization. Nike's tagline isn't about the quality of their shoes; it's about what the shoes mean to their customers. Go for that approach. Say something concrete, action-oriented, and inspiring. In just a few words. That's not easy!
   
3. Clever wordplay is neither necessary nor helpful. Wordplay is not as cool as you think. It's more likely confusing than interesting. And it rarely inspires action or connection. Just don't do it.
   
4. Big picture, a tagline isn't all that important. Really, it's not going to change your fate. Good fundraising with a lousy tagline will work just fine. If changing your tagline will be a heavy lift and/or cause conflict, don't bother! Spend your time being good at connecting with donors.
   

See also these posts on tagline:

• Abstractions make taglines pointless
  
• Beware the 3-Verb Fumble in your writing.
  

Some fundraisers insist that effective fundraising must put "negative" information in front of donors -- that is, a problem for them to help solve.

Others say we should inspire donors to action by showing them positive change that they can become part of by giving.

Which is right?

The Boomerang Blog suggests positive/negative is the wrong question, at How Do You Use Psychological Appeal Persuasion Triggers So They Complement Each Other?

Instead, it's about giving donors the "gift of joy."

When you use scarcity ... you’re actually tapping into something positive the donor wants. [W]hen you channel the principle of loss aversion, you simply give people a ... choice. Go down the one route and something they care about will be lost. Go down the other route and they, and those they help, will win.

If you're stuck in the positive/negative either/or paradigm, it seems you have to choose between:

• All good news, which tells donors they aren't needed.
  
• All bad news, which can work up to a point, but isn't sustainable because it shows them they don't make any difference.
  

Not a good place to be stuck.

Instead, fundraisinag should go like this:

• There's a problem (a very real and serious problem).
  
• But there's also a solution, and you can be part of it.
  

Then (and here's the key that far too many fundraisers don't do), you show them that the solution is happening. That their giving really did what you said it would do. This second part happens when you thank donors and report back, and it's key to keeping new donors.

Here are some old copywriting tricks that can help you write better, stronger fundraising. These are used by fundraising writers with decades of experience under their belts. They can work for you too:

1. Write the reply coupon (or donation page) first. Knowing exactly where everything is pointing helps you stay on task and avoid rabbit trails as you write.
   
2. Remove nearly all adverbs and most adjectives. Most modifiers are lazy short-cuts that make you feel you've said something powerful when all you've created is more likely self-evident hype. Taking out the modifiers forces you to do what your ought to do: Write with nouns and verbs.
   
3. Get in the mood. It helps if you feel the way you want to reader to feel. Get into the reader's head. Try to feel that pitch of emotion that moves her to take action. (Seasonal hint: When you're writing Christmas fundraising, listen to Christmas music -- soupy, old-time sentimental stuff, like Bing Crosby. Works wonders to get you in the mood!)
   
4. Get out of the mood. It also helps to go into pure analytical mode about your writing. Think like Mr. Spock, eliminating your own feelings so you can be purely objective so you can see your work clearly.
   
5. Read out loud. You can eliminate so much hard-to-read writing by doing this. If you stumble while reading out loud, you have stumbly copy in front of you. This helps you pinpoint the problems spots and fix them.
   

(This post first appeared on August 22, 2017.)

Most fundraisers are getting worse results in 2022 than they did in 2020 and 2021.

Inflation? Recession? Maybe.

But for many, the "problem" is, we’re returning to “normal.”

2020 and 2021 were record-breaking years for those who kept fundraising. Donors were pouring out donations, because they understood the crisis we were all facing together. Most likely, those two years will be the high-water mark for fundraising for a long time to come.

That time of unusual responsiveness is over, at least for most of us. Think of 2022 as a lot like 2019 -- maybe worse. Fundraising results tend to follow the stock market, so when stocks fall, so does fundraising.

Mainly, 2022 looks and feels bad when you compare it to the last two years.

The difference is that if you stayed on top of things during the pandemic, you probably have a healthier and larger donor file. So normal (and even difficult) times may be better than they used to be.

What about next year?

There's no reason to believe 2023 will be much different from 2022. Things might work for you or against you. It's largely up to how you respond to the reality you face.

What should you do now?

1. Keep on fundraising. Playing possum will only make it worse.
   
2. Continue to be relevant. Talk about the situation you face now. The organizations that are continuing to do well are those talking about the struggles of inflation and a rough economy.
   

Take note of this: A picture is worth a thousand words. So choose your pictures carefully!

We take a look at the ways photos can emotional depth and measurable pull-power to your fundraising ... or undermine your message entirely!

A good fundraiser knows when to use “negative” images and when to use the positive ones we prefer. Find out in this episode the rhythm and balance of images that motivate donors to give. And to keep giving.

From the archives of the now-defunct podcast Fundraising Is Beautiful. This episode first aired on October 11, 2017. Listen here:

(If you don't see the audio player below, click here to listen.)

It's common for fundraisers to agonize over who should sign their letters and emails.

I have good news for you: It's not that difficult. Except in very rare cases¹, who signs your messages has very little impact on results. You have a lot of choice in this area -- if you're given the choice.

Here's a simple checklist for deciding who should sign:

Your signer should be...

• The highest ranking person² ...
  
• Who won't muck up your messaging³ ...
  
• Or destroy your timeline⁴ ...
  
• (Optional) And is willing to share their telephone number with donors⁵
  

Footnotes

1. Sometimes a celebrity or much-admired person is identified with a nonprofit organization. In those cases, that person's signature adds value to the fundraising because so many people know and trust them. Very rare!
   
2. It's good when the signer has high ranking. It says "we mean it." But the next three criteria are much more important than the signer's rank.
   
3. I hate to say it, but some nonprofit leaders are highly opinionated micro-managers who don't know a lot about fundraising. They can devastate fundraising effectiveness with the revisions they require. One way to avoid this is to find someone not as high-ranking, but knowledgeable about fundraising -- or at least cooperative.
   
4. Another common feature of leaders is they are very busy. Some take weeks to get back to us with permission to use their signature. That's even more damaging to results than messing up the message. Find a signer who cooperates in a timely manner.
   
5. You don't have to do this, but it's pretty cool: Being able to say in your message, "If you have any questions or want to know more, you can call me directly. My cell phone number is 000-000-0000." Some leaders will say, No way, no how to that, fearing a time-sucking avalanche of calls from donors. That won't happen. Most likely they'll get between zero and three calls. And the calls will be lovely. But if a potential signer can't stomach making that invitation, find someone else.
   

Book Review: The Art of Relevance by Nina Simon

One of the main causes of weak fundraising is that it's irrelevant to donors. Fewer give, because the ask doesn't connect with their lives in any way they can perceive.

It could be superbly written, masterfully designed, a great call to action, smart segmentation ... and still fail because it's not relevant to the people you're talking to.

There are two main types of fundraising irrelevance:

1. It's of little or no interest to the donors you're hoping to connect with. This is usually a failure or mismatch of audience to offer. You're talking to the wrong people.
   
2. It could be of interest to the donors, but the way it's presented fails to connect with them. This is a failure of messaging.
   

#2 is the sad one. It should work, but it doesn't, because the organization has failed to reach out beyond their own mindset. It's very common in fundraising, a top reason for poor results.

That's why you should read The Art of Relevance.

The book is not (directly) about fundraising. It's written for arts and culture organizations, especially museums.

These organizations struggle big time with the knowledge gap between themselves and their donors. The people who work there are experts. The donors are not. So the insider jargon that requires years of specific training to understand sails right past the donors. It's opaque and boring to them.

That's arts organizations. But as I read the book, I found crystal-clear messages for fundraisers in all sectors.

Because there's always a knowledge gap between us and our donors, and we always struggle to bridge that gap ... we're always prone to churning out irrelevant messages that aren't good at raising funds.

Thinking about relevance can help you change that.

Here's how the book puts it:

To be relevant, we need to cultivate open-hearted insiders. Insiders who are thrilled to welcome in new people. Who are delighted by new experiences. The greatest gift that insiders can give outsiders is to help them build new doors. To say, I want you here — not on my terms, but on yours.

You might be surprised that it's about your heart. Why not your brain? You need to be smart to excel, right?

Well, no. When your heart is open -- that is, you have an emotional connection and empathy with those you want to move to action -- you will be much better at seeing and saying what they're looking for. What they understand. What they care about. You'll also build a personal bias toward asking them what they're seeking. And paying close attention to their behavior -- even when you don't really like their viewpoint.

Because the truth is, as the book says: "You cannot assign relevance by fiat. People choose for themselves what is relevant. You can’t dictate it from on high."

You know your stuff better than your donors do. You know what they "should" care about. And when you make forcing them to care about your cause the same way you care about it, you are wasting your time and theirs.

But when you tune into what is relevant to them, you are on the road to great fundraising.

Don't feel bad if it's a struggle. It's not easy. But start with an open heart and a willingness to learn ... and you are on your way.

This book is a start.

There's a certain way things are done. We create printed pieces that look nice and professional. We use tasteful color palettes. We use an elevated vocabulary to signify our sophistication and education.

It's everywhere.

And it's the equivalence of white noise -- sound that you don't quite hear.

When you do things the way everyone does everything, your message becomes white noise. People don't notice it. Clearly, not a good thing for your fundraising!

The Veritus Group Blog tackles that problem at Don’t Be White Noise to Your Donor: 4 Ways to Stand Out:

... your donors are getting a lot of communication from dozens of nonprofits all asking for help, and many are tuning out because it starts to feel like “white noise” to them.

This is why effective fundraising is so often "ugly." That can turn it into an audible voice that rising out of the background noise.

Here are some ways to stand out, from Veritus. These are aimed at major donors, but you can adapt and scale them to any group of donors you want:

• Simple, personalized video you make from your phone. Yes, it's going to be shaky. The sound will not be great. It won't look classy and professional. But it will break through and get attention!
  
• Personalized Impact Report. Create a report that uses a lot of photos, graphs, and short chunks of text. Don't spend a lot of time making it look perfect. Just get the info down on paper (or on a PDF) and send or email it.
  
• November Giving Report. Before the year-end rush is in full swing, send a letter to donors that summarizes their giving so far this year. It's a great reminder of what they can do during the giving season.
  
• Thanksgiving Card. (For US donors.) You can still send the traditional Holiday card, but your Thanksgiving card, sent to arrive just before Thanksgiving, expresses your thankfulness for what the donor has done.
  

Look for ways to stand out, to break through, to be anything but white noise in your donor's day.

Quiz for fundraising nerds:

Which of the following is a statement of fact?

1. Nobody reads long direct mail letters any more.
   
2. Donors hate the color yellow.
   
3. Donors are no longer responding to email fundraising.
   
4. If you mail more than three appeals in a year, you will lose donors.
   

Trick question. None of these are statements of fact. They are hypotheses. Ideas that should be scrutinized before being taken as fact.

When someone tells you one of these things, you should dig deeper: How do you know this to be true?

You will almost always discover that the statement falls in one of these categories:

• Knowable, and reasonably proven to be true. (Or untrue.)
  
• It's not knowable, because we can't know what's in people's minds, even if we ask them, because they don't know either. But we can discover what people do in response to what we put in front of them. That's knowable and important.
  
• Possibly true, but the reality is far more complex than the statement.
  
• A logical extrapolation from known (or maybe not really known) facts. These may or may not bear up to scrutiny.
  
• Personal opinion or wishful thinking.
  

Do your best to discern the origin of the facts people throw at you. You'll often find that the most reasonable sounding facts are wild stabs in the dark.

Here are the "answers" to the quiz:

#1: Unknowable. People may or may not reader Long letters. Maybe they never did read them. But we do know that donors respond more to longer letters.

#2: Unknowable. And unlikely. Sure some people may "hate" the color yellow, but the real question is "Do our donors respond to messages that have yellow in them. Some organizations raise a lot of money using the color yellow. Others don't. Many other things matter more!

#3 Somewhat true. Response to emails has never been high (at least, compared to direct mail), and many emailers have seen that response drop over time. Others have seen improvements, usually because they've grown more sophisticated and donor-focused in their emails, and they're practicing smart integration with other channels.

#4: Almost certainly untrue. There is no "perfect" number of fundraising appeals, but I can tell you, it's more then three! Don't fear a mass exodus of your donors. The large majority of them want to give!

Here's an interesting outer envelope for a direct-mail acquisition piece mailed by Doctors Without Borders:

Does that strike you as odd that it leads with the idea of the donors' emotional state? Doctors Without Borders' mission is not to help people deal with our anxiety about the way the world is.

Off point?

I'm pretty confident this is a control, meaning it's working.

So what's going on?

They're addressing one of the real reasons people give. Yes, they want to solve a problem and help other people. But they also give for internal reasons. Like giving fulfills their religious obligations. Or giving helps make the world safer, cleaner, kinder -- better in ways they care about.

Giving improves one's sense of control.

In times of heightened tension and uncertainty, this rises in importance for many people. We'd all rather feel like rescuers than like victims. Giving helps with that. And experienced donors know it.

Doctors Without Borders is outward focused. They help people in dire need. They're looking for donors who are also outward focused and care about other people, often people far away.

But they've discovered that every outward focused donor also has an inner life and inner needs. And connecting those two things can move them to action.

This might work for you.

One other thing about this envelope that you can't see from this scan: It's fat. About a quarter of an inch (6mm) thick. That's likely another reason it works. It's different from other envelopes.

It's that way because it contains a tote bag. An actual tote bag (along with the usual direct mail fundraising ingredients.

Tomorrow, we'll look at the other side of this envelope and what we can learn from it -- including the tote bag.

The question: Why should I do fundraising?

It annoyed me. I was thinking, Why are you at a fundraising conference if you haven't figured that out? But I bit my tongue and did my best to be helpful.

I'm not sure I was helpful.

Because I kept thinking about the question. Over time it dawned on me that this terrible question might have been a very good question.

Because fundraising is hard. And expensive. And time-consuming. And there are other ways of getting revenue, at least for some organizations.

So why bother with fundraising.

It's a question you should think about. The answer is different for different organizations. But thinking about it will help you clarify what you're doing and why.

All that to say something we all already know: There are no stupid questions.

So if you have any fundraising questions -- and you may have been keeping them to yourself because you're afraid they might be stupid -- go ahead. Ask.

And here's who you can ask: Moceanic founder and fundraisingologist Sean Triner. He has generously thrown open his calendar to people with questions.

You can book a free 25-minute zoom call with Sean by clicking this link.

Yes, free. No obligation to do anything other than ask your question and get help with your fundraising.

It's very easy. Low key. Fun.

And you might discover something important. Or at least get a sympathetic ear!

Schedule your meeting now!

If you've never been involved in major donor fundraising, this post at MarketSmart, may surprise you: I’ve never told anyone this before

Good major donor people hear this statement regularly from their donors:

...if we’re doing our jobs well, we’re creating spaces where people can share. It’s rare that people get asked thoughtful questions about their life, childhood, values, and dreams.

Because that's how you succeed at major donor fundraising. You connect meaningfully with people. And they end up tell you amazing things about themselves.

If you work in an area of fundraising like direct mail or digital, you might rarely meet a donor face-to-face and get that kind of connection.

But you need the same mindset: Curiosity. Openness. Kindness.

That will make everything you do better.

So ask yourself: Is your approach to donors all about how amazing your organization is ... or is it about connecting in a meaningful way with the people who help make it possible?

You hear variations of this all the time: everything and everyone is getting dumber and dumber.

A recent example came from longtime Broadway actress Patti Lupone who lamented in public that Broadway plays have dumbed down to reach the audience. (You can read about it here.)

That's not news, I know. But there's something important for all of us if we think about what a veteran lamenting the state of things these days. Because we all do it.

And it may be more damaging than we think, as noted by Marketing the Arts to Death, at Patti LuPone’s “Dumbing Down” Comments Insulting:

And it’s not just Patti. Arts professionals everywhere regularly insult the people who pay their salaries by lamenting the ‘dumbing down’ of audiences, criticizing their shortened attention spans, and complaining about having to produce ‘popular’ entertainment to get people to buy tickets. Seldom do these folks venture outside their artsy bubbles long enough to immerse themselves in the lives and cultures of the distracted dummies they so casually disparage.

Fundraisers often struggle with the sense that they have to "dumb down" what their organization does because donors "don't get it."

I get it. But it's a destructive attitude.

Here's why: You can't hide your disdain. It's like a bad smell that you can't cover up. If you think your donors are dumb or inferior, you'll show it. Maybe with poor word choices. Maybe with inappropriate offers. Maybe in weak or non-existent thanking.

Few donors will consciously feel insulted or talked down at. But they'll feel something. And they'll look for better places to give. Sure, there are always other fish in the sea -- replacement donors for the ones you lose. But the sea can get fished-out quicker than you think.

It's always true that your donors know less about your cause than you do. They aren't being paid to spend every day thinking about it. Their attitudes aren't as tuned-in as yours. But that doesn't keep them from believing, and caring. And giving.

All it does is challenge you to meet them where they are. To be relevant to them. To connect with them. There's a divide you have to cross, and it isn't easy.

There's a phenomenon that happens with teachers. As the years go by, you get a sense that every year the students get worse.

It can cause teachers to despair, to give up hope, to leave the profession. Or to be increasingly bitter and ineffective teachers.

But it's an illusion. Students aren't getting worse; you're getting better. Every year, you have more knowledge, more depth, more practical and philosophical connection with your teaching topic. But every year, you get a whole new crop of students who know little about it. So every year, the gap between the teacher and their students is a bit wider.

It's the same with fundraisers. We're paying attention. We know more this year than we did last year. We've wrestled with the complexities. We've dealt with the controversies.

But the donors aren't on the same journey. They're like that new crop of students, who frustratingly haven't made the progress we've made.

The great teachers get that. They turn it to their advantage, and they don't blame students for being "worse" all the time.

Same with great fundraisers. They reach out to the donors where they are -- not where we wish they were. They use their increasing knowledge to be better at reaching out. They don't worry about the knowledge gap that's growing between themselves and donors.

If you feel like you're "dumbing down" your fundraising, you're doing it wrong.

Think of it instead as growing better at reaching across a gap with kindness and hope in your heart and improving ability to make your complexity understandable to other.

That's what fundraising can be.

Here are the 5 most-read Future Fundraising Now blog posts in the month of October:

1. What the plumber taught me about bad fundraising

2. The dream donor who slashed a revenue stream

3. What to do about your "weakest" fundraising appeal

4. Keep donors paying attention by raising questions, not spouting answers

5. 2 things donors NEVER complain about
   

Online fundraising is a lot like Halloween: Part fun, part scary. It has plenty of tricks and plenty of treats to keep you on your toes.

Online fundraising "tricks"

• It's a "cold" medium. The way people read email is different from traditional media. It's fast, action-oriented, impatient. Not good for emotion and compassion -- the basic ingredients of charitable giving. That explains the response/conversion rates -- numbers that would sink the entire endeavor if it weren't for the low cost.
  
• The donors who really want you can (maybe) find you. The fanatics who really should be on your list can now Google you. They still might not find you, but you can improve your chances with good SEO.
  
• The donors are younger. (This is also treat; see below.) Younger donors have low retention rates. That shows up in the comparatively poor retention of online donors.
  
• It's crowded. If you thought the mailbox was bad, with it's dozens of competitors every day -- think about the inbox: Someone who's a habitual online donor probably gets a hundred or more emails per day from nonprofits that have something to say.
  
• It's cheap -- so cheap, you can afford to be stupid. And being stupid is expensive, no matter how little it cost in the first place.
  

Online fundraising "treats"

• The donors are younger. Younger donors give higher average gifts, and if you can keep them, they'll stay around longer. The trick: define your target younger audience as those between 45 and 65.
  
• Average gifts are high.
  
• It's two-way. Donors can actually interact with you. That's a foundation for a meaningful relationship.
  
• 
  It's multimedia. Do you have a cause that's hard to capture with words? Online, you can show pictures, videos, live cams -- whatever it is that makes the case.
  
• It's cheap. No spiraling postage, paper, printing costs. That makes a lot of things possible. It also lowers the risk of innovation.
  

(This post first appeared on October 31, 2013.)

In major donor fundraising, it's often said that it's harder to get the appointment than it is to get the donation.

That's because in our world, time and attention are more precious than money.

This is true for nearly everyone, not just wealthy major donors: Time is in much shorter supply than money. And time is the currency of attention.

That's what makes fundraising difficult. Not that people don't want to give (though that can be an issue), but that they don't have time to hear you out in the first place. They don't have time to read your mail or your email. They're too busy to take your phone call. They skip right past your ad, or your spot.

If you get their attention, the chance that they'll give skyrockets.

So what does this mean for your fundraising?

Respect your donors' time

• Don't go on about your programs, methods, and superior staff. Tell them what they can do by giving. Talk to them about putting their values into action. Not how awesome you are.
  
• Tell them what you want them to make possible through their giving. It isn't "support us." It's "do this wonderful specific action!"
  
• Stay on topic.
  

Compete for their attention

• Be interesting! Speak to them about their concerns and in their language.
  
• Be relevant. Find out what they care about. Not what you think they should care about.
  
• Write and design for ease of reading.
  
• Reach out frequently enough that you aren't a whisper in a hurricane.
  

Make the whole thing feel good and memorable

• Be specific about the need you want them to help meet. Don't teach them your philosophy. They're probably not interested in that!
  
• Thank them promptly when they give.
  
• Report back on what their giving has accomplished. (If you do this, you'll be one of very few of their charities that do.)
  

(This post first appeared on January 25, 2017.)