February 2008

1. Extra!: Fundraising in tough times
By Mal Warwick and Dan Doyle

2. Ask the Guru!

3. Answerman: Acquisition best practices
By Peter Schoewe

4. Testing!

5. Copy Corner: Finding the right letter signer
By Managing Editor Deborah Block and Paul Karps

6. Ask Mal

7. Crisis communications
By Jerr Boschee

8. Involvement

9. What's Working: When plain is beautiful
By Managing Editor Deborah Block and Paul Karps

10. Happiness?

 

---

1. Fundraising in tough times

How a recession can undermine your fundraising program—and what you can do to combat it

By Mal Warwick and Dan Doyle

We know what you want.

You've been hearing scary talk about a recession that may or may not already be underway. You want to know what impact this economic bogeyman could have on your fundraising program, right?

Fair enough. Let's get started.

How recessions impact fundraising

The single biggest lesson to be learned from economic history is that our economy continues to grow over the long term. The increase in the Gross Domestic Product above the rate of inflation averaged 3.3% annually over the 100 years of the 20th Century. Such seemingly dramatic financial shocks as the collapse of the U.S. stock market in 1987 or the dot-com bust in 2000—even, ultimately, the crash of 1929—sooner or later come to look like minor setbacks. Here's the long-term picture:

 

This is the pattern traced by investments of different types over the 81-year period starting 1925—four years before the Crash of 1929. "Small cap" refers to stocks in companies that are relatively smaller and thus are valued less highly by the marketplace. "Large cap" refers to stocks in big companies, such as those that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Fortune 100. "T Bills" are short-term bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury. (Source: SmithBarney/Citigroup)

Recessions are always temporary—by definition. Even depressions, which are much more severe and longer-lasting, yield to the long-term trend of economic growth. Eventually, of course—sometime later in the 21st Century, no doubt—resource limits will catch up with us and probably reverse the growth curve. (It's not only oil production that will eventually peak, if it hasn't already. Just as serious are the sharp and continuing declines in the availability of drinkable water and arable land.) But for the foreseeable future, we can expect any recession that comes along to be followed by a recovery, even, possibly, a rapid one.

Research shows that overall fundraising results roughly correlate with economic conditions, chiefly the trends in personal income and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). If the economy's up by these measures, fundraising tends to rise. If it's down, fundraising revenue slips. However, the DJIA is what economists call a "leading indicator," which means that it tends to predict economic conditions in the near future, while fundraising is a "lagging indicator" that doesn't slip until a recession is well underway. By the time fundraising results have dropped, the economy may even be on the upswing. And in a mild recession, the recovery may get underway quickly enough to head off any significant decrease in giving.

Economic conditions affect fundraising results in specific ways and do not hit all nonprofits equally. For example, the rise and fall of the stock market tends to indicate the ability and willingness of many major foundations and big individual donors to give generous gifts. Foundation grants may be especially prone to drop sharply, since most foundation assets are invested in securities, and foundation boards tend to limit their annual giving to 5% of assets at the most. However, this effect also is likely to come later than the downturn itself, as grants are typically made on the basis of the previous year's asset evaluation.

Corporate contributions also tend to shrink as corporate profits decline, although the impact of a poor economy will affect different companies in very different ways. Many companies manage to preserve their profits through cost-cutting even in a down economy. And there are businesses in "countercyclical" industries—ones that serve basic human needs such as groceries that don't go away in a recession—which may even benefit from a downturn and might increase giving.

Similarly, there are countercyclical effects in the nonprofit sector. Difficult economic conditions underline the importance of human services, reinforcing the case for giving to traditional charities, while other sectors, such as the arts, might suffer.

Except in cases of severe economic downturns, the effects tend to be much less pronounced on membership renewal rates, average gifts in direct mail and telefundraising, cash contributions in churches and on the streets, and other barometers of giving by people who aren't necessarily wealthy. However, as a recession drags on, donor acquisition efforts may become even more challenging than they already are. Even those people whose day-to-day finances aren't curtailed by a recession tend to become more cautious, and response rates in acquisition may shrink because donors hesitate to expand their giving choices. Shrinking personal income and a bear market on Wall Street will take their toll.

In summary, then, here's what to watch out for in a recession:

An economic downtown may—or may not—adversely affect your fundraising results to any great degree. It depends on the severity, length, and character of the recession. So, don't panic!

Even if nonprofits generally are feeling the pinch of a gloomy economic outlook, your organization might not be similarly impacted. The effects you'll feel will depend on how you raise your money, what services you provide, and, ultimately, what you do in response to deteriorating economic conditions.

Unquestionably, a recession poses problems, nonetheless—big problems, for many of us. So, what can you do about them?

The wise way to respond to recession

In uncertain economic times—especially when the airwaves and the front pages are abuzz with talk of recession—nonprofit executives may overreact. Under pressure from their boards of directors, they all too frequently take "cost-cutting" too far. The greatest victims are new-donor acquisition, which is often sharply cut back or even eliminated temporarily, and donor cultivation programs such as donor acknowledgments. These are the easiest targets, but in many ways the most unfortunate. Witness, for example, the impact of a one-year hiatus in donor acquisition imposed on a growing direct mail donor development program:

This chart illustrates cumulative revenue lost over five years by suspending acquisition for only one year, based on a growing direct mail program with 8,000 active donors who contributed a total of $1 million last year. Typically, this program acquires 2,500 new donors a year to sustain its growth. The chart shows the revenue lost year by year if that organization ceases acquiring new donors as an "economy" move. While new donors contribute little gross revenue in their first year on the file (and must be acquired at a loss), their long-term contribution to revenue within five years is over $1 million, a critical amount for a program of this scale.

Curtailing donor-acknowledgment activities in the guise of cost-cutting can be similarly counterproductive. Eliminating or economizing on thank-you letters or phone calls will prove to be a major error over the long term. Renewal rates will slip, donor loyalty decrease, and the donorbase eventually shrink. And if such cost-cutting steps are combined with a cutback in donor acquisition, the result can be tragic.

So, what's a body to do in the face of a recession that's already making fundraising even more challenging than it usually is?

Here's what not to do:

  Don't cut back on new-donor acquisition.

  Don't economize on thank-you letters or other donor cultivation activities.

In these respects, our advice is simple: Stay the course. There's no other way to ensure that your organization will emerge healthy and poised for renewed growth when the recession is over.

But staying the course doesn't mean you can't find ways to cut costs while protecting your file's overall health. Here are five ideas you can use to make it through tough times with stable net revenue—and a growing program.

How to get the most out of your program during tough times

1)  Focus on list exchanges. Exchanging rather renting to acquire new donors has two benefits. It's cheaper to exchange a name than to rent it, reducing your overall acquisition costs. And in most cases, exchange names perform better than rentals in acquisition mailings, because they come from lists filled with donors who've shown they enjoy giving to a cause like yours. If you favor exchange lists over rentals in your merge/purge, you may find your continuation rental lists aren't paying their way after duping out the names that are already on your exchange partners' lists.

2)  Mail your lapsed file more deeply in your acquisition mailings. If it costs you less to reactivate a lapsed donor than to acquire a new one, you aren't mailing your lapsed file deeply enough. Your lapsed names are free to mail, and reactivated donors can have higher long-term value than new donors because they have established relationships with you.

3)  Focus on your highest-value donors. It can be tempting to mail your entire file at nonprofit rates or skimp on personalization to cut down on costs. But there's a core of your file—maybe 10 or 20%—that generates most of your net revenue. These are the donors you need to be certain receive your mailings—and you can only really do so by paying for first-class postage. You should also invest in inspiring them to respond, either with increased personalization or by paying return postage. Don't make the mistake of cutting corners in your communications with your most valuable donors.

4)  Gang print. We've seen hundreds of tests where a different outer envelope has made absolutely no difference in response or revenue. If you can't think of a reason why you're producing different components from mailing to mailing, get rid of them. By printing in larger quantities, you can save thousands of dollars.

5)  Reduce your postage expenses by making sure your lettershop is taking the fullest possible advantage of postal discounts. The Post Office is making it more rewarding for you to do their work for them. Correct your file regularly using NCOA (the National Change of Address list) to achieve the best nonprofit rates, and commingle with other mailers to get even lower postage and faster delivery.

Unfortunately, we're facing a recession at the same time as our most loyal core of donors is dying. Demographic changes underway are undermining many of our assumptions about how best to communicate with our donors, what persuades them to give (or not), and what the future of fundraising may hold. Clearly, what's in store for us in the future—recession or no recession—is not more of the same.

But direct mail fundraising is built on innovation. Every proposition is testable. Every great idea, with a disciplined approach, can lead to a stronger program, whether it fails or succeeds. The paradigm may be changing, but the principles remain.

We believe the greatest mistake during these tough times will be to stick to what you know and retreat to a defensive position. Cutting acquisition and not investing in building relationships with your donors are quick ways to create a direct mail program that no longer justifies its expense.

So, whatever you do, keep trusting—and testing—your best thinking.

And good luck!

Mal Warwick is Founder and Chairman and Dan Doyle is President and CEO, Mal Warwick Associates, 2550 Ninth Street Suite 103, Berkeley CA 94710, phone (510) 843-8888, fax (510) 843-0142, Web www.malwarwick.com, e-mail info@malwarwick.com. The authors are deeply indebted for assistance in preparing this article to Peter Schoewe (Mal Warwick Associates), Lincoln Pain (Effective Assets), Michael J. Peri (SmithBarney), Melissa S. Brown (Giving Institute/Indiana University Center on Philanthropy), and Jan Alfieri (Association of Fundraising Professionals Resource Center).

---

2. Ask the Guru!

Have a fundraising question that calls for expert advice? "Ask the Guru" at the London-based Resource Alliance. Just click here—and bookmark the link for future reference.

The Resource Alliance has recruited some of the wisest and most experienced fundraising experts in the world. Each is serving for a month, answering all comers. Questions are posted anonymously on the Ask the Guru page, along with the answers. The Q&As by previous Gurus (including yours truly) are worth a look.

—M.W

---

3. Acquisition best practices: How to test against your control

By Peter Schoewe

There’s been a lot of talk lately about declining response to new-donor acquisition mailings. In these challenging times, it’s more important than ever to make sure you're following the best practices in acquiring new donors—while thinking creatively about how to improve your results. Of course, the lists you use in your acquisition mailings are of the first importance—and will make or break your program. But you should also take a cold, hard look at your creative, offer, and Ask—and make sure you have the right mix to inspire people who know nothing about you to help you in your cause.

The first item on any acquisition creative check list should be to make sure you have a proper control—and that you're testing against it. In acquisition, you need to test extensively to maximize returns from your available list universe. But to test, you need to make sure you have a solid control that you're testing against—otherwise you won’t be able to make the correct decisions based on your test’s results.

What makes a control package? It can be any package that you’ve mailed once, and then mailed again without making extensive changes. You should have a feel for how your control performs: how much it costs, what kind of average gift you can expect, and what percentage response you’ll get.

What do you test for?

Before you decide on creating any test, you need to set aside time to look at your acquisition results, and decide what your goal for testing is. Usually, a test will win by doing one of two things: increasing your response rate or increasing your average gift. Unfortunately, it’s rare that a test will do both.

That means you need to decide what's more critical for your acquisition program. If you're bleeding dollars to acquire a handful of donors—and are having a hard time justifying the expense of the program—you may want to test to increase response, by reducing your Ask amount or adding response enhancers such as premiums or involvement devices. That way you can pay for more of the acquisition investment with upfront results, while adding more donors more quickly to your housefile.

On the other hand, if you're acquiring a fair number of donors, but having a hard time retaining them or upgrading them in your housefile program, you need to test to increase your average gift. This is often a tougher challenge than increasing response rate, because the best way to increase your average gift (without destroying your response rate) is to find a compelling, urgent need that will inspire donors. You really need to push hard on your creative, convincing potential donors to invest deeply in your cause.

Once you decide your goal, you can begin to determine what you specifically want to test against your control. I think of testing in acquisition in two ways:  incremental tests to improve the control and breakout testing to come up with a new control.

Incremental vs. breakout testing

Incremental tests aren’t as exciting, but, especially as you build an acquisition program, they're much more important. For an incremental test, you should replicate your control package exactly, except for the difference you're testing. For example, you may want to change one of the Ask amounts in your control package, while keeping every other element between the two packages the same.

In a breakout test, you throw everything you know about your control to the wind—and try an entirely new package. Of course, it’s important to do this type of testing every once in a while. Most controls fatigue over time (although much less rapidly than you might guess), and it can be possible to get a great boost in your results by trying an entirely new package.

But the truth is that most new packages lose to controls. If you've built a control package and tested incremental changes against it, you should have a good idea of what's inspiring to the individuals whose names appear in your list universe. If you can easily create a new package that matches or beats the performance of your control, you just haven’t haven’t done your homework yet.

The best part of acquisition testing is that it’s fun. You get an insight into what specific elements motivate donors to support your cause—and you get to root for your favorite package as you watch the returns come in!

Peter Schoewe is Senior Consultant, Mal Warwick Associates, 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 103, Berkeley CA 94710-2516, phone (510) 843-8888, fax (510) 843-0142, Web www.malwarwick.com, e-mail peter@malwarwick.com.

---

4. Testing!

If you've had much experience with direct mail testing, you know it's unusual to observe a statistically valid difference in a head-to-head test—of just about anything against anything else in a legitimate comparison. However, there are a few types of tests that, more often than most, lead to meaningful results. Initial Ask amount tests are one of those.

Here, for example, is what happened when one of our clients tested two contrasting Ask strings (a slightly different take on the initial-Ask test):

The difference in response rates is statistically significant, with a confidence level of 95%. The difference in average gift amounts is also statistically significant, with a confidence level of 97.5%.

Uh-oh! There's a catch here, no? The first Ask string yielded a significantly higher response—but a significantly smaller average contribution. The net effect is to yield virtually the same revenue.

So, what's to be done?

Once again, Chairman Mal's First and Last Law of Fundraising applies: It depends.

What was the purpose of conducting this test? Was it to determine how to boost response without substantially lowering the average gift? Or was it to ascertain whether the mailer can bring in higher initial gifts on average (from donors more amenable to upgrading) without greatly depressing response?

Depending on which of these factors is more important, the test might have been a big success—or a failure.

The moral is: Don't wait until after the fact to know what to look for in test results. Decide in advance why you're conducting any particular test.

—M.W.

---

 

5. Finding the right letter signer

By Managing Editor Deborah Block and Paul Karps

Recently, we took part in a conference call to discuss an organization’s upcoming acquisition package. Participants on the call covered the bases, including the appeal’s Marketing Concept, components, offer, tone, and graphic look.

We also discussed who would sign the letter. Because in some instances, who signs your letter can be a critical factor in its effectiveness. But in others, this can actually be a non-issue. It simply doesn’t matter one way or the other.

The group’s last acquisition package had a thoughtful theme, persuasive writing, lively design, and enticing offer—and generated an excellent response. The mailing was clearly a success.

The letter was signed by this cultural organization’s Director of Membership Services. (The regular signer, the Executive Director at the time, was on medical leave.) Though, we wager to guess, it wouldn’t have mattered who the signer was. Those who chose to respond, and their numbers were plenty, just plain didn’t care.

So who will put her John Hancock to the group’s next acquisition letter?

In the conference call, we considered having the new Executive Director sign, so he can introduce himself to the community and gain visibility. But then again, we wonder, will it really matter who signs this package? The decision is forthcoming.

In the meantime, though, here are some questions to ask when deciding who to give signing honors to in your next appeal:

 What tone do you want to project? Your goal may be to present a formal voice, especially if you’re perceived to be a high-brow institution. Then, your Board Chair or President might make sense. (One caveat: Even when striving for a reserved air, always be sure to keep your writing warm, friendly, and personal.)

 What information do you want to impart? Perhaps your letter will talk esoterically about the worthiness of your group’s mission. In that case, someone with a more lofty perspective, such as a Board Chair or President, is appropriate. However, if you’ll be focusing on the benefits of membership or the nitty-gritty work of your group, you may be better off using a down-in-the-trenches staff person.

 Would you add interest by using someone in the field? Say you’re an international aid group. A staffer who’s right in the middle of the action day after day might describe her work—and the organization’s—in a more compelling manner than someone sitting behind a desk in the group’s headquarters.

 Would a celebrity signer help—or hinder—your results? A +6movie star, author, or other "A-lister" signs a letter that comes to your mailbox. You start to wonder if there’s a famous person who could sign your next letter. But be warned: Just because someone is well known doesn’t mean she’s the right one to give a voice to your organization. Choose the wrong celeb—someone who isn’t universally respected or personally committed to your cause—and her endorsement may come across as contrived or inauthentic. Then, you could very well turn your prospects off big-time. Snag the right celebrity, though, and you could do very well. So tread carefully.

 Will the proposed signer help—or hinder—the approval process? Underlying everything we’ve said so far is the logistical hurdle of whether your signer is ready, willing, and able to okay the letter copy on a timely basis. Or, to put it bluntly, will this person be a tad difficult to work with—either in terms of demanding unreasonable copy changes or just being inaccessible during the timeframe of the mailing?

Suffice to say, we’ve all probably found ourselves in situations where we think we have the perfect signer . . . only to realize later that a "less-than perfect" signer more amenable to the process would have been preferable.

Copywriters Deborah Block and Paul Karps are partners in BK Kreative, 1010 Varsity Court, Mountain View CA 94040, phone (650) 962-9562, fax (650) 962-1499, e-mail bkkreative@aol.com.

---

6. Ask Mal

Since 1994, when the Mal Warwick Associates Web site went online, Editor Mal Warwick has answered fundraising questions posed by visitors to the site. Hundreds of those Q&As are available here. In this feature, we'll spotlight one Q&A from the most recent month.

Question: We just mailed (about 10 days ago) about 2,500 requests to join our Patrons Circle—gifts of $2,500 or more. A selection is personalized by board members or our director, the rest not. It's a pretty good list. We've gotten about a dozen responses. Is there any literature out there about the best way to do telephone follow-up?

Mal answers: I'm not aware of anything extensive in writing about using the telephone for what I call high-dollar phoning of the sort you're describing. In fact, there's precious little in print about telefundraising of any sort. I guess the practitioners of that rarefied art are talkers rather than writers.

Here, though, are a few questions to ponder:

  Are the people you mailed to truly good prospects for gifts at that level, or do they just happen to be present in your leaderships' address books?

  Are the people who will follow up by phone genuinely well-informed about the organization and its fundraising program? They'll need to be, if they're asking for gifts of $2,500 or more.

  What are the benefits for joining your Patrons Circle—or is it just a fancy name for a giving level?

  How much time will have elapsed before starting your phone follow-up since you mailed your appeals? If it's more than two weeks or so, you may find the recipients don't have a clue what you're talking about.

  Are you planning to lead the conversation by asking whether the person on the phone received your letter? Don't. That's an invitation to put you off by saying "I'll read it and get back to you.

  Are you prepared for long conversations on the phone? If anyone is truly interested in sending you $2,500 or more, it's more than likely that she'll have a lot of questions. You'll need to be prepared.

---

7. Crisis communications

By Jerr Boschee

What do you do when the dreaded moment arrives?

How do you react when an employee is arrested? When reduced funding causes layoffs? When changes in the market force you to shut down beloved programs?

In other words, how do you handle bad news—especially the kind that goes public and shakes stakeholder confidence?

Four cardinal rules

My friend Chris Klose (klosecomm@hotmail.com, (301) 651-1225) has been a crisis communications specialist for more than 30 years. Based in Washington  DC, he's seen corporations, government agencies, and nonprofits stumble badly when faced with negative situations—usually because they disobey four cardinal rules:

  Tell the truth

  Take responsibility

  Don't delay

  Show them you care

"Your ultimate goal," says Chris, "is to preserve trust in the organization. Even though it may be painful, telling the truth is rule number one. Always. Candor can defuse the most explosive situations.

"And Truman was right. 'The buck stops here.' Any attempt to dodge responsibility will just stir things up.

"And don't delay. Things will only get worse if you stall—it can become a feeding frenzy. Remember things never turn out as badly as you fear—unless you delay, obfuscate, and dodge." In this era of Internet blogging, when news races 'round the globe in nanoseconds, you'll never have time to catch up unless you respond immediately.

  Show you care

Finally, Chris emphasizes you "have to get on their side of the table. Your stakeholders are less interested in what you know or what you did—what they want to know first is whether you care. So acknowledge their pain or concern. You can't bloviate and fake it, either. Your response has to be genuine. You have to make a personal connection.

"If you're a values-based organization," he says, "and if you have a loyal set of stakeholders, they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. They'll forgive your mistakes. The American public is eminently reasonable. Ten percent on the left and 10% on the right are wacko, but those aren't the people you're speaking to. It's your neighbor over the back fence, the guy on the bus, the teacher in your kids' school. Your stakeholders aren't wolves and hounds—they want you to get through this and maintain their confidence."

Chris recommends that the first thing you do is write down your version of the facts—then get them out to the public as quickly, honestly, and concisely as possible, "in plain English!" Boil your story down to no more than three points, then share them with all your stakeholders. Invite questions. Respond truthfully. Keep the doors of communication open 24/7.

Eventually, the din will subside, the pain will ease, and life will return to its normal hectic pace.
Until the next time.

Creating a crisis communications plan

Which argues for creating a crisis communications plan well in advance of any bad news. Try bringing together a sub-group of board and staff members charged with trying to anticipate everything that could go wrong. Then appoint an overall crisis management team and create a detailed response mechanism for each contingency, including a primary spokesperson (typically the CEO) and, if necessary, a technical expert.

Be sure to write the plan down and put it somewhere convenient—including somewhere outside your office. (One of my friends failed to do so and had to scramble when the office burned down.) Then, when the dreaded moment arrives, reach for the plan—and remember the four cardinal rules . . .

One more thing. It may seem odd, but bad news can also be an opportunity.

To begin with, it's a chance to reach out and reinforce your relationships with key constituents. A responsible reaction to bad news frequently translates into greater loyalty and admiration. Stakeholders volunteer to help as you regroup and possibilities emerge from potential disaster.

In addition, it's an opportunity to revisit your core assumptions, freshen your values, and reinvigorate your sense of purpose.

So manage the crisis—don't let it manage you.

Jerr Boschee is Executive Director, The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 6215 Sandydale Drive, Dallas TX 75248-3942, phone (214) 866-0472, Web www.socialent.org,  e-mail institute@orbis.net or jerr@orbis.net. This article is reproduced with permission from the Social Enterprise Reporter, in which it appeared in the monthly column "Boschee on Marketing."

---

8. Involvement!

Every once in a while some commercial marketer drops something so intriguing into my mailbox that I can't resist passing along the word. The latest example of direct marketing innovation that's come my way is from AT&T. Presumably, this is the "new AT&T," not the old one—the monopoly, that was never known for marketing of any sort.

For starters, the package comes in a translucent oversized envelope. Components include a sheet of blank white paper imprinted only with the salutation "Dear AT&T:", a #10 Business Reply Envelope, and a stiffer sheet of the same translucent vellum with a block of copy in white, reversed out on a blue background. That copy (in tiny sans serif type) reads in part as follows:

Now it's your turn. Visit att.com/DearAT&T and tell us what you would like to see on att.com/OnwardSmallBiz. Or write to us and drop the postage-paid envelope in the mail today. Either way,  we want to hear from you in order to better deliver your world.

The contents of this unusual customer-involvement package are pictured here.

—M.W.

---

9. When plain is beautiful

By Managing Editor Deborah Block and Paul Karps

We admit it. Searching through an overflowing box of direct mail packages to find the ideal candidate for the next What's Working isn't always as much fun as it sounds.

Believe us, sometimes it's just plain hard work! (Okay, it's not like digging ditches, but you get the idea.)

You see, we don't want to highlight the same excellent examples by the same excellent mailers issue after issue. What's more, it's often tough to find something fresh and interesting that also serves as smart, effective direct mail.

That's why, when dipping into the box of mainly smooth white outers, it was hard not to miss the rough textured 6 x 9" plain brown envelope, which we gladly pulled out for closer perusal.

But looks aren't everything.

Besides creating an outer that really stands out in the mail, it quickly became apparent that this package from the American Nicaraguan Foundation (Miami FL) was actually built around its unusual envelope.

The one sheet, two-sided 8-1/2 x 11" letter begins, "What will you do with the envelope this letter came in?

"Chances are you'll throw it out. I know I would. After all, it's just brown paper.

"But on many nights, pieces of cardboard—not much thicker than the envelope you'll probably throw away—are all that stand between torrential rain and Myrna Amador's young children sleeping on the dirt floor of her tiny shack."

Wow! We like the outer, but we really like the letter's lead. The tie-in with the envelope makes sense and draws the reader directly into Myrna's story, as well as the organization's mission of helping impoverished Nicaraguans.

The same thoughtful work was evident on the 8-1/2 x 11" reply. The bottom two-thirds of this full-sized sheet shows six photos of children. To emphasize the brighter lives that ANF helps provide those it serves, the three "before" shots on the left are in black and white. While the three "afters" on the right are four-color photos. Headlines and copy also reflect the before-and-after approach. (And just in case the reader still doesn't get it, arrows point from left to right.)

Here’s one more smart decision we noticed: ANF’s Web site includes a member login option—perfect for making those who support this group feel like privileged insiders.

To see this complete package, click here.

Copywriters Deborah Block and Paul Karps are partners in BK Kreative, 1010 Varsity Court, Mountain View CA 94040, phone (650) 962-9562, fax (650) 962-1499, e-mail bkkreative@aol.com.

---

10. Happiness?

Leave it to the folks at the Toronto Globe & Mail to reveal to us the shocking news that money doesn't buy happiness.

In an article published not too long ago by what many consider Canada's leading newspaper, we learn how Princeton University researchers have found "that the link between a higher income and an elevated sense of well-being is greatly exaggerated and mostly an illusion."

Will wonders never cease?

It appears the researchers—including a Nobel laureate in economics, no less—used a newly developed procedure to uncover the news that "people with above-average incomes do not necessarily spend more time doing things they enjoy."

Imagine that!

What the Nobelist found, it turns out, is that "those with higher incomes tended to devote more of their free time to tasks involving tension and stress—such as work, shopping, childcare, and exercise."

Who knew?

—M.W.

---

Printer Friendly  ¦   ¦ Sign Up ¦ Contact us ¦ Newsletter Archive

---

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoratative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is require, the services of a competent professional should be sought. (From a declaration of principles jointly adopted by a committee of the American Bar Association and a committee of publishers.)

Mal Warwick's Newsletter: Successful Direct Mail, Telephone & Online FundraisingTM
(ISSN 1067-9316) is published 12 times per year by Strathmoor Press, Inc.,
2550 Ninth Street, Suite 103, Berkeley CA 94710-2516,
phone (510) 843-8888, fax (510) 843-0142, e-mail info@strathmoor.com.

Copyright © 2008 Strathmoor Press, Inc. All rights reserved.