Production, design, & Postage
What are the basics of envelope design? Have you ever tested a newsletter style package for an acquisition mailing? Will a hand-addressed outer work better with major donors? Are "Hand-signed and hand-addressed" packages worth the cost? Which is better — a stamp or indicia? Which is better — a window or closed-face envelope? Which type of address labels is better? Can a "localized" teaser lift the response rate? Does using a color photo on the outer envelope help or hurt? Are pictures and/or color more likely to get donorts to open an appeal? Can you give me advice on using color in direct mail? How will digital printing impact fundraising? Do I need include a letter with a newsletter mailing? Which is better — a personalized letter or a colorful outer envelope? Which is more important - segmenting and personalizing a small list or creating a pretty mail piece? What typeface is best for direct mail letters? Is it better for letters to have brand design or standard formatting? How reliable is non-profit bulk rate postage compared to first-class? Which is most likely to be opened, bulk mail or first class? Do hand-written appeals really work better? Is the "typewriter" look really necessary? Does a blue signature really lift response? Should we print direct mail letters on both sides of the page? Is it always necessary to use our own stationery? Is it okay to design unique stationery for holidays? Is it okay to list your board of directors on letterhead? Will listing the Board of Directors on our letterhead affect the response rate? What's the proper way to list tax deductibility information and member benefits? Is there a different rate of return for remit envelopes listing gift options in ascending or descending order? What should go in a letter soliciting auction items? Do you have good sames of reply envelopes? Is it okay to insert a donor envelope with an acknowledgement letter? Is there research regarding whether or not to include a return envelope in an acknowledgement? Is it OK to send a return envelope with a thank you? Is a return envelope to a survey really necessary? Is it okay to use a P.O. box on the return envelope? Should we color code our envelopes or stamps? Is it appropriate to send membership cards to our donors? Will a post card work as a member renewal mailing? Should we include a brochure in an acquisition mailing? Can you provide some usable tips on brochure copy and layout? Should our newsletter be part of a fundraising mailing? How will a newsletter impact the response to our appeals? Should we insert our holiday appeal letter within our newsletter? What's the best response vehicle for a newsletter or annual report? What should be included in a Capital Campaign mailing? Is there a "best format" for mailings designed to encourage church donations? Will mailing a CD be cost-effective? Should our Christmas appeal have a music CD as a front-end or back-end premium? Should we include magnets in our packets? What is a "new donor welcome package" and where can I view a sample of one?
What are the basics of envelope design?
I'm the in-house graphic designer here at our organization. You may be aware of our extensive direct mail strategy through Christmas Seals. Well, the national organization is responsible for that. We're interested in appealing to Coloradans on a more personal level. We've already produced a few pieces that target specific progeram that our organization offers, such as research and our asthma summer camp. Our next step is to create an envelope. We'd like to have an envelope that will "envelop" both of these pieces. Do you have a recommendation on how to approach this? Can you help us with strategies on how to entice people to open these pieces? What is the rule of thumb on creating an envelope for direct mail - colors, phrases, graphics, etc?
Mal answers: Your question is so broad that I'll only be able to skim the surface of an answer. After all, what you really want to know, it seems, is What makes direct mail work?
Broadly speaking, I classify outer (or "carrier") envelopes into three types:
(1) those that display no type or graphics other than, perhaps, the nonprofit's name, logo, and address; a stamp or postal indicia; and the addressee's name and address
(2) those that also feature one or two lines of type that constitute a "teaser" on the front (and possibly the back as well) -- a short, provocative statement that is intended to pique the reader's curiosity and increase the likelihood that the envelope will be opened
(3) those that also feature colorful graphics, including photos or drawings -- often photos or peek-a-boo views through windows of contents such as name-stickers, stamps, or the like
There is no law -- not even a rule of thumb -- about which of these approaches is "best." My Universal Law of Fundraising comes into play here, as it does so often:
It depends.
For your national organization's Christmas Seals package, the most colorful and revealing approach probably makes the most sense. For your own, "more personal" letter, you'd probably be better off with one of the more restrained approaches. Whether you include a teaser (thus choosing option 2 rather than option 1) will depend on what message you want to deliver in the letter. And it sounds to me as though you want to communicate with your donors about a range of programs. In such a case, it may make more sense -- other things being equal -- using the most sedate and businesslike approach. If the people you're writing are your own donors, perhaps a simple letter from the organization is enough of a teaser in itself.
As a graphic designer, this advice may disappoint you. The truth is, however, that often the least use of color and graphics is most advantageous in fundraising mail. Time and again, I've seen flashy, beautifully designed packages draw substantially lower response than the simplest, most straightforward and businesslike letters.
Go figure.
Thanks for writing, and all the best of luck to you!
Have you ever tested a newsletter style package for an acquisition mailing?
Dear Mal, I have recently begun working with a client who does 2 acquisition mailings a year (qty combined = ~100,000). The mailings are usually bulk printed and the response rate has been hovering at around 1% forever. It is becoming increasingly hard to acquire lists for this client and the Control package has remained the same for a long time too. I am interested in testing something new with this client. Have you ever tested a newsletter style package (which includes a newsletter, reply coupon, BRE but no letter) for an acquisition mailing? If so, was the response good/bad/etc? I really appreciate your feedback.
Mal answers: I've never tested precisely that, but I've seen nonprofits try it, and the results were dismal. I don't recommend it.
A few nonprofits manage somehow to acquire new donors with newsletter packages. I mean real newsletters, along with a cover letter, RD, and reply envelope (not necessarily a BRE).
In your client's circumstances, I recommend you try another acquisition package. You can tinker with the control, but the payoff is usually meager with package variations. The best chance to boost results substantially is with an entirely new package. Maybe that would be your newsletter package -- but the odds are better with an alternative letter package.
Good luck, and thank you for writing.
Will a hand-addressed outer work better with major donors?
Will a hand-addressed outside envelope to major donors yield better results?
Mal answers: The straightforward answer to this question is, I don't know. It probably depends on the look and feel of the envelope and of the appeal it contains. If you use a standard #10 (business-sized) envelope, I suspect you'd get better results from hand-addressing. If it's a larger envelope, a more business-like, "typed" name and address might do at least as well. When I tested the latter question years ago, hand-addressing did *not* improve results -- in fact, it depressed response.
Are "Hand-signed and hand-addressed" packages worth the cost?
I recently received a direct-mail piece from High Touch Direct Mail, which uses "genuine handwriting" or "computer handscript" to "get it read!" In addition, the company uses live postage stamps and high touch bar codes to "get it read!" When I received a piece from High Touch, I opened it immediately thinking that it was a personal invitation. I fell for it completely. What do you think of this and similar services. Is it worth the cost to invest in this service? Are the return rates higher? Will I spend less to raise more as the company promises?
Mal answers: Packages like these — available from a number of vendors across the country — have been widely adopted for fundraising . . . because they work so often. However, you're not likely to "spend less to raise more." It's more probable that you'll "spend more to raise more." Hand-signed and hand-addressed packages like these cost considerably more than offset-printed packages. But, when mailed to the right list — almost always a list of your active donors, not a list of prospects — they tend to give a higher return on investment because the response rate, and sometimes the average gift as well, are substantially higher.
Which is better — a stamp or indicia?
Are there any market studies on this topic, and if not, what is your opinion: Direct mail response rate for stamped vs. indicia letters.
Mal answers: You've asked one of those questions that is frequently tested by mailers who have long since run out of other propositions to test. The upshot is, there are "studies" galore -- but those studies are in the form of proprietary tests, the results of which are rarely divulged to the public.
Over the years, my clients have tested live stamps vs. indicia on a number of occasions. Here are my conclusions from that experience:
(1) Sometimes -- perhaps a slight majority of the time -- live stamps pull a higher enough response than indicia to justify the slight additional expense. Sometimes they don't. So the outcome appears to depend on the character and timing of the mailing.
(2) The difference between the two is rarely large. (Which is why I wrote that this is something mailers test after they've run out of more significant questions.)
Now for my opinion, which you also asked me to give: The appropriateness of using one or another of these forms of postage varies with the character of the mailing itself.
In a businesslike appeal meant to resemble official correspondence, I would almost always specify a metered indicia (as opposed to one that's pre-printed), simply because that gives the appearance of business correspondence mailed from an office.
By contrast, in a mailing designed to convey a personal character, I would opt for live stamps. That would look more natural than an indicia in those circumstances.
Be sure not to miss the reference I made above to a metered indicia. That means that, in fact, there are three postal options open to you: a pre-printed indicia, a metered indicia, and a live stamp. The majority of nonprofits seem to prefer the easiest option, the pre-printed indicia -- which is the biggest reason I generally shy away from it. But I can't say I've put that opinion to a rigorous test.
Thanks for writing, Gus -- and good luck to you!
Which is better — a window or closed-face envelope?
We are in the midst of our first major membership acquisition campaign. We are about to send a second appeal letter to mailing lists that have already received one appeal from us in June 2002. In that first appeal, we used a window envelope for the outgoing mail piece. Do you recommend we continue using window envelopes instead of the standard type (no window)? I appreciate any help you can give. Thank you.
Mal answers: The question you ask is actually a little more complicated than simply choosing the type of envelope, because the answer depends upon a number of other factors. Among these are:
* How the appeal is addressed. Would you simply be affixing to the outside of the envelope the same mailing label that would otherwise go on the response device and show through the window? Or would a closed-face envelope require you to put the name and address in two places (both inside and outside)?
* How much, if any, personalization is included in the package. For example, if you're using a computer to address the letter and the response device and send it out in a window envelope, you could just as easily computer-address only the response device and the outer (closed-face) envelope and leave the letter as generic.
* Whether the appeal is intended to look businesslike or personal.
* How much difference there is in price between the two approaches -- and whether the extra money (if any) is warranted by the results.
With all that said, most nonprofits decide to use standard window envelopes in their donor-acquisition programs simply because they find that is most cost-effective. Usually, the extra money you might pay for the additional personalization required by a closed-face envelope is warranted only in mailings to proven donors or members.
Which type of address labels is better?
Do you have any data on how a window#10 (with address label peeking out from reply device inside) performs in comparison to a solid #10 with address label adhered? We are paying for the extra step of labeling both currently and then matching the two pieces and I am wondering if it is worth it.
Mal answers: I've just finished work on a book on testing in which I've included a chapter on this subject. The book is "Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . : Raise More Money with Direct Mail Tests," and it should be out from Jossey-Bass in March 2003. But that doesn't help you now, when you undoubtedly have a mailing to assemble.
There is no generalization that holds about the relative value of closed-face vs. window envelopes. In some cases, the extra personalization (the two-way match) that a closed-face outer requires proves well worth the expense. Usually, that's the case in house mailings -- i.e., appeals to proven donors. It's not often the case in prospect, or cold, mailings.
In any case, I suggest you look into a way to avoid using mailing labels. As my grandkids would say, "That's SO 20th Century!" Check out inkjet or laser-printing, both for your response devices and for the outer envelopes. Nowadays, they might even be cheaper, and they certainly look better.
Can a "localized" teaser lift the response rate?
I want to do a series of letters to different areas of the country; some of them will be very localized — i.e. a mailing to people in the Los Angeles area about an activist-oriented project in their area.
I tried this once before, but the response rate was not what I would have expected. On a mailing (small I know) to about 15,000 the response rate has been about 1.2%.
This mailing was done in a plain white envelope with only the address label, a return address, and the postage imprint on the outside.
My thought (after reading your book) is that these folks that received the mailing just looked at it as yet another bulk mailing from an organization that they had never heard of, and pitched it. (The organization that I run is relatively new.)
Therefore, I want to try again with a teaser on the outside of the envelope talking about the local nature of the message. I am with an animal protection organization, and I was thinking of something like:
"We need YOUR help to fight animal abuse in Los Angeles!"
Do you think this would make the piece more effective? It should at least get the message across about the local nature of the appeal. And if this works, we will likely do a series of these mailings across the U.S. in certain specific locations. I appreciate your help.
Mal answers: There's a host of factors that determine the success or failure of a direct mail solicitation (and I'm sure you understand that). For example, if the lists you use are unresponsive, it won't matter what you're asking or offering. Response will be poor. But let's assume you've got all those other bases covered.
Your reasoning appears sound to me. You need something to indicate to readers that your letter relates to them in some specific way. Adding a localized teaser may be the simplest and cheapest way to convey that. Just be sure there's some reference inside the envelope to the specific localized program you run -- ideally, both in the letter and on the response device.
Good luck, and thanks for writing!
Does using a color photo on the outer envelope help or hurt?
In a test for a large charity in the Netherlands, I found some notable differences between packages with and without a picture on the envelope.
On what does the effect of the picture depend? I think the type of donor may matter. The experiment was conducted with a list of donors who gave at least once in the past 24 months. A subgroup of them also made planned gifts. These donors will recognize the organization's fundraising materials, and need fewer graphics to open the envelope. The picture might put them off because they will support the organization anyway. Another condition that may modify the effect of a picture is the type of organization. The experiment I did involved a religious charity working for international development. Donors to such organizations may be more concerned about fundraising costs. And a final condition is the content of the graphic materials. Horrendous pictures of disaster may generate aversion, while a picture of hope may inspire donors to give more.
[In our test,] the no-picture condition worked best, with a response rate of 19.9%; the full-colour picture had a response rate of 17.4%. I think the no-picture condition worked better because the recipients want the charity to spend less on fundraising costs.
Mal answers: You've reported that using a full-color photo on the outer envelope of a fundraising appeal depressed donor response to a measurable degree. This doesn't surprise me in the least, since it confirms the experience I've had over the years. I'm well aware that color and photography are extensively used by many nonprofit mailers, who swear that their results are enhanced. I've seen that happen only once, however. Every other time I've tested bold graphic elements on fundraising mail, it has lowered, not raised, the response.
You suggest four different possible explanations.
One, that the donors included in that particular mailing were already familiar with the charity and didn't require some eye-catching graphics to capture their attention. Perhaps. But my experience with color and photography on carrier envelopes includes mailings to prospects as well as donors.
Two, that photos might work for some organizations but not for others. I suspect you're on the right track here. For example, an environmental organization dedicated to saving exotic wildlife might well gain more support by featuring graphics that illustrate the species they're trying to preserve. By contrast, a hospital might need to approach prospects or donors in a more conservative fashion. Still, my experience with color and photography has been consistently so sobering that I would be inclined to test, whatever the type of organization. The market is full of surprises.
Three, you suggest that donors who received the colorful package might have perceived that the charity was spending too much on raising money. Certainly, I've read such responses from donors on many occasions over the years. However, on balance, I find this argument unconvincing — because I have successfully raised more money for clients on many occasions by mailing more expensive packages, not less. (In fact, I just completed a book on this subject, due out by April, 2005, from Emerson & Church Publishers: "The Mercifully Brief, Real-World Guide to Raising $1,000 Gifts by Mail.")
Four, you venture the opinion that the content of the graphic materials might matter. This is true without question. Gruesome photos of starving children in Africa might attract morbid folks, but many others would be quick to toss them in the trash.
My hunch is — and it's only a hunch, unsupported by statistical evidence of any sort — that the biggest explanation is as follows: vibrant color and photography suggest commercial advertising rather than communications from a nonprofit. Keep in mind that direct mail recipients' decisions about what to do with their mail are often made in a flash — a matter of mere seconds. It would be easy enough for a reader in a hurry to toss aside a brightly colored envelope confusing it with a credit-card offer from a bank or an ad for a clothing sale.
Are pictures and/or color more likely to get donorts to open an appeal?
Mal answers: Not in my experience. I assume you mean pictures or color on the outside envelope. Pictures have often depressed response in mailings for my clients. Color may be worthwhile, but I suspect it's a close call.
Can you give me advice on using color in direct mail?
Mal answers: There are two questions lurking behind the one you've asked. First, whether using color can boost response. And, second, which colors have the most beneficial effect on response? I can't give you a definitive answer to either question, but I'll get you started.
First, about the effect of color on response. Some of the most effective, high-impact appeals I've ever seen used no color, simply black and shades of gray (screened back from 100% black). However, most of the testing with which I'm familiar has shown that using a second color more than pays for itself by boosting response (and thus revenue) sufficiently. Sometimes adding a third color makes for further improvement. By contrast, though, paying for four-color printing does not always pay for itself. In fact, using full-color materials is sometimes counterproductive, presumably because it strikes donors as extravagant. (This will, of course, vary with the organization: a zoo or an art museum, for example, would be hard-pressed to design an effective solicitation without using lots of color.)
Second, about which colors are most effective. Here's where my understanding gets foggy. I know that using red on the outer envelope often grabs attention and thus helps increase response. I know that using yellow (a color used in hospitals to calm patients and visitors) has the opposite effect and is generally not a good idea. But I don't know much more than that. I know that these matters have been tested extensively by commercial direct marketers. But I've just never looked for the information. (If you find it, could you let me know, please?).
How will digital printing impact fundraising?
What impact do you believe digital printing will have on direct mail fundraising?
With the amazing personalization that is possible with digital printing, it would allow nonprofits to subsegment their messages 4 to 6 times beyond what they do today. Are you using this method for any of your clients today?
Mal answers: I've been fascinated with the potential of digital printing for more than a decade. From time to time (though admittedly not in the last couple of years) I've looked into the technology in hopes of putting it to work for my clients. So far, conditions haven't seemed ripe for that. Two problems have emerged in the past:
(1) Digital printing has seemed more expensive.
(2) The deal-killer: most nonprofits are unwilling to invest in the extra elbow grease required to write all that highly segmented copy.
There's a third reason, too. The extra segmentation introduces lots more opportunities for error. That factor shouldn't be overlooked. Direct mail is already error-prone because it entails so much attention to detail. A digital printing system would be that much more challenging to manage.
Do I need include a letter with a newsletter mailing?
We mail a newsletter to 10,000 donors. This fall I'm doing a test - 5,000 newsletters are sent as a self-mailer & 5,000 are sent in a 6 x 9 envelope looking for the envelope to raise response. Do I need to put a letter into the envelope? If so, why? Thank you again!
Mal answers: The best way I've found to raise money through a print newsletter is to insert it in an envelope -- usually with a teaser such as "Here's your newsletter from ____" -- along with a cover letter, detached response device, and reply envelope. That converts the newsletter into a full-fledged fundraising package.
Anything short of that configuration -- say, for example, a newsletter in an envelope along with a pre-printed standard "remittance" envelope -- should do better than a self-mailer, but probably not as well as the full treatment.
You ask why. Who knows why? We just mail these things and measure the results. We almost never know why things work or don't.
Best of luck, and thanks for writing.
Which is better — a personalized letter or a colorful outer envelope?
A client of ours, a college, is looking at doing a fundraising mailing for Christmas. Budget of course is limited. They are debating whether they would be ahead of the game to go with a 9.5 x 5.75 envelope with 3 colors (Christmas decoration), addressed, with a generic letter inside, versus a #10 window envelope, one color, containing a personalized message. Thoughts? Again my thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Mal answers: It's hard to decide such a question in the abstract. But my instinct tells me to go with the personalized letter -- so long as "personalized" means specifying an Ask for each donor that's related to that donor's previous giving.
Best of luck!
Which is more important - segmenting and personalizing a small list or creating a pretty mail piece?
We have done tiny mail campaigns in the past, consisting of letters in white envelopes to about 600 people. We now have the software to segment and track people. One idea has been to create personalized letters to different groups of donors (ranging in size from 40 to 300 donors.) Our leadership is more interested in creating one pretty postcard-type piece to go to all donors because we are also working on increasing our organization's visibility. It is not in our budget to create multiple pretty pieces. At this stage, should we go with the letter or postcard? Also, will we shoot ourselves in the foot if we don't send a return envelope? Thanks!
Mal answers: I am rarely dogmatic about anything in fundraising, but this is one instance where I'll shout out my answer: DO NOT SEND POSTCARDS to your donors if you want them to respond! Direct marketing, and specifically direct mail fundraising, requires that you incorporate an easy way to respond within the communication you send to prospective donors. Your donors WILL NOT pick up the phone or go to their computers to send you money in response to a post card.
Furthermore, the emphasis on "pretty" pieces is dead wrong. Pretty doesn't sell anything except (sometimes) in the market for art, clothing, or home furnishings. Your job as a fundraiser is to communicate a compelling message that will motivate people to send money. Pretty pictures are . . . pretty pictures.
You are absolutely right to focus on segmenting and personalizing your messages. White envelopes are fine. If you want to enhance the look of your brand, develop an attractive logo -- and print it on those white envelopes and letterhead.
Good luck, and thank you for writing.
What typeface is best for direct mail letters?
What kinds of studies have you done on how font choice in an appeal letter might affect response? I'm working on a stream of letters to wealthy people who are in our donor database, but who haven't given as much as they are able. My intent is for these letters to look like they are personally generated by our President, so I drafted them in Courier, and I stayed away from any graphics or other gimmicks that would be beyond what an old-fashioned 55-year-old man could produce. The complaint I get from people in the routing process is, "I hate Courier. It looks so old-fashioned." I've explained that that is exactly the effect I want, but I have been challenged to provide some proof to back up my choice of font. Can you help me?
Mal answers: Thank you for lobbing me what is known in the interview business as a "softball question." This just happens to be a topic about which I know a few things.
A few years ago I edited (and partially wrote) a book called Type & Layout. The author is Colin Wheildon, and it was published by Strathmoor Press. "Type & Layout" reports on a nine-year series of studies in readability of text, comparing the impact of different typefaces, layout styles, and other graphic factors. As far as I know, it's the only book of its kind, and it received rave reviews from top designers, editors, marketers, and advertisers. "Type & Layout" will answer a whole host of questions related to yours.
However, it won't directly answer the precise question you posed. What that question usually boils down to in practice is this: should I set my letter in 12-point Courier ("typewriter") type, or in 12-point Times Roman ("typeset") type?
I know of no extensive "studies" on this question. But my colleagues and I have recently tested just that proposition in a head-to-head comparisons in direct mail. What we found, in fact, was that the typeface didn't seem to make any difference in response.
Other mailers have reported results from similar tests. What one agency told me recently is that Times Roman outpulled Courier. But I would take that with a grain of salt. I believe they used a form of "New Courier" which is not as legible as the standard Courier type. So I'm skeptical of their results.
Traditionally, direct mail fundraisers advocate using only Courier 12-point -- because we appeal predominantly to older folks (mostly 65+). These are people who grew up with typewriters and perceive a more personal character in a letter set in Courier rather than some proportionally-spaced, "typeset" look.
After years of making the same uncompromising recommendation, however, I've come to believe that these perceptions are changing, even perhaps among older people. After all, we'd all have to be blind not to notice that letters nowadays are not produced on typewriters! As a practical matter now, I vary the use of both fonts (and occasionally others), depending principally on the character of the letter-signer. For example, I have to assume that a university president wouldn't personally type her own letters, whereas the head of a grassroots advocacy group very well might. (With only a little stretch of the imagination, that group might even be expected to depend on a rickety old typewriter!)
In other words, no one really knows the answer to your question. In fact, there really isn't any single answer. If the question is really vexing you, I suggest you test.
Best of luck to you, and thanks for writing!
Is it better for letters to have brand design or standard formatting?
Our organization recently launched a new brand design that is overflowing into formats for letters/communications. I've told them that direct mail solicitation letters should follow a standard format (shorter paragraphs, underlined sentences, P.S., etc), but I need documentation of research that supports my belief. I've tried to find something within your books, but haven't been able to find anything specific to the letter format.
Mal answers: Puzzling. What does a brand design have to do with the length of paragraphs and the use of a P.S.? If someone tells you it does, please ask them what they're smoking.
More to the point, and potentially harmful to direct mail response, is the character and size of the type your new design template may dictate. If you're being told, for example, that you have to set letters in sans-serif type in a small size in order to conform to the brand characteristics, well, that could be trouble. Both sans-serif body copy and small fonts make letters more difficult to read and understand, especially for the older people who predominate among direct mail donors. So, don't take changes of that sort lying down.
You want proof? That's hard to come by. Most of the "proof" consists of data from in-house direct mail tests conducted by nonprofits or their consultants and is typically deemed proprietary, for some stupid reason. However, I believe there is a little about font tests in my book, "Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3." And, perhaps more relevant, is a book I originally edited and published under the title "Type & Layout," by an Australian hournalist named Colin Wheildon, who actually researched the impact of such factors on reading comprehension and reported them in detail in his book. An Australian publisher recently brought out a second edition of that book under the title, "Type & Layout: Are You Communicating or Just Making Pretty Shapes." You can find both books on Amazon.com.
All the best, and thank you for writing.
How reliable is non-profit bulk rate postage compared to first-class?
I'm trying to find statistics on the reliability of a non-profit using a bulk rate (vs. paying for first class postage). Do you have any stats or sources I could refer to? Thanks!
Mal answers: There are two aspects to this very good question.
First, "reliability." This is generally taken to mean the rate of
"deliverability" -- i.e., the proportion of bulk-rate mail that's actually delivered to the individual addressee. I believe that the Direct Marketing Association in New York conducts periodic studies on this question and may have data available to the public. There are articles about this from time to time in the trade press. You might check with DM News to see whether there's any efficient way to search their archives.
Second, there is the question whether it's *worthwhile* for a nonprofit to use first-class postage instead of bulk. In prospect mailings -- that is, mailings inviting non-donors to give -- it's rarely advisable to use first-class postage. Response may be greater -- but the
increase will probably fall short of covering the added expense. There are exceptions to this rule, but they're rare.
However, with in-house mailings -- those sent to people who have already joined or donated -- it can be very worthwhile indeed to use first-class postage. As a rule, I opt for first class when mailing to donors whose highest previous gift was at least $50. For some clients, I recommend $25 or even $20 as a lower limit.
Which is most likely to be opened, bulk mail or first class?
What effect does paper stock have on the recipient? Does mailing bulk or first class have an effect on the recipient? Which is most likely to be opened? Also, what effect does paper stock have on the recipient?
Mal answers: If direct mail fundraising were a science, I could supply numbers in response to your questions. Unfortunately, things don't work quite that way in fundraising, as you know perfectly well. Oh, it's true enough that at any given time we can obtain precise response figures and test, say, bulk versus first class postage in a given mailing. But those results are far from likely to be transferable to the next organization, or even the next mailing.
With that said, first class postage has several benefits, which, taken together, explain why I use it widely in mailings to the more responsive and more generous donors:
(1) Letters (almost always) arrive faster, particularly if you're mailing to a wide region.
(2) Letters are more likely to be delivered, since the non-delivery rate with bulk mail is said to be in the neighborhood of 10%, sometimes higher.
(3) The money comes back faster.
(4) I believe that people take first class communications more seriously (especially when we use actual first class stamps).
Similarly, high-quality paper stock may help persuade donors that an appeal is more "important" or more personal than a typical direct mail solicitation, which is typically printed on inexpensive 50-pound white paper. Over the years, our tests have strongly suggested that this is the case.
Do hand-written appeals really work better?
I saw a report in last May's Chronicle of Philanthropy noting that CARE USA, the Atlanta-based relief agency, regularly gets a 9% response rate and an average gift of $41 with a routine lapsed donor renewal campaign they call Winback (May 16, 2002, p. 27). The CARE campaign, according to the article, is driven by a simple handwritten note card. CARE's agency, The Domain Group, uses a vendor called High Touch Direct Mail, that hires people to write a simple 34-word note on each card. Each envelope is then hand addressed and sent by first class mail. Each OSE and each CRE has a first class postage stamp affixed to it. The package includes a reply card and reply envelope. All this sounded very expensive, but apparently works, as it has been done month in and month out for some time.
Then I saw on pages 86-88 of your recent book, "How to Write Successful Fundraising Letters," that your firm has used a similar handwritten note card strategy for the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Your report of this campaign in your book did not give the same degree of specific results as the "Chronicle of Philanthropy" article on CARE did, but the indication was that it worked.
Finally, six years ago a handwritten greeting card style direct mail campaign was reported on in the May, 1997 issue of "Fund Raising Management" magazine. That article, titled "Beyond Personalization: When Handwriting Makes a Difference," described how Seattle's Union Gospel Mission used a hand-addressed invitation style card, that included a handwritten note asking for a special gift, penned below a preprinted copy describing the Mission's work. The article noted that their Easter 1996 appeal achieved a 6.33:1 ROI, which compared to a more traditional window envelope package the same time the previous year (1995) that achieved only 2.39:1 ROI. A particularly interesting aspect of the article was the fact that even though the cost per piece for the handwritten campaign was high — $2.16 each — that apparently did not matter, since the campaign raised more than 2 1/2 times more per dollar spent than the previous year's cheaper window envelope package, that cost only $0.59 per letter.
At first I assumed these campaigns were only for upper end donors (the Union Mission campaign was sent to those who had given at least $100 in aggregate over the prior 12 months and the one reported in your book was apparently targeted to high-end donors).
But then I read that the CARE USA campaign was seeing good results with such campaigns to lapsed donors.
And recently I saw a vendor sales piece reporting that the Detroit Symphony Orchestra got a 26% response rate with a hand-personalized campaign, but theirs used simulated handwriting instead of human hands writing in pen and ink. It apparently didn't matter, because what they called Computer HandScript, targeted at the symphony's entire mailing list, raised $160,000, and was recently repeated.
Mal, do you recommend such campaigns? What more specific results can you cite regarding the San Franscisco AIDS foundation campaign, in which your team utilized a handwritten note card format for its appeal?
As a nonprofit raising only $500,000 annually with no really big donors, should Levasis Ministries try such a strategy?
Finally, what about the growing use of simulated handwriting that really looks like penmanship, versus the obviously fake out-of-the box stuff? I understand that compared to the $2.16 per letter that the Union Mission campaign cost, such computerized campaigns look real and cost less . . . half the cost.
Given these published results, it sounds too good to be true. Looking forward to your advice.
P.S. I also saw that Kay Partney Lautman's fine book, "Direct Marketing for Nonprofits: Essential Techniques for the New Era," also cited a case in which her firm used a hand-addressed, hand-written note on a note card for New York's Central Park Conservancy. Like your coverage, however, she only mentioned it worked, but failed to give any compelling proof of how well it worked.
Mal answers: Thank you and congratulations for writing the longest and most detailed question I've yet received on this site. I appreciate the thoroughness of your citations.
For starters, I will be publishing (in the July 2003 issue of my print newsletter) an article based on case studies supplied by Aria Communications, the firm that has done a number of handwritten appeals for my firm. Their case studies, of course, all produced impressive results — but, as you already know, that merely corroborates the experience that many professionals (including Domain Group and Kay Lautman as well as my colleagues and I) have had using variants of their technique.
However, I have no similar experience using simulated handwritten fonts. That's on my list of tests to conduct. Aria's and other vendors' work is really written by hand, and obviously so, but I admit that I've seen computer-generated text that, at first glance (and sometimes second) fooled me into thinking it was handwritten, too.
Within limits, the size of your organization or of your donor list doesn't matter. I think you're on the right track to pursue the use of this technique. Since I know that true handwriting usually does work well for me and my colleagues, I have no hesitation in recommending that you try it. If you're a little more adventurous, you might try one of the best, custom-tailored handwritten fonts instead.
Is the "typewriter" look really necessary?
I recently bought your book, "How to Write Successful Fundraising Letters". You say "Often it's important to preserve the illusion that I'm really writing on a typewriter." Why? I know that years ago, my old boss always did fundraising letters with courier type. But nowadays, when everyone owns a computer, what is the benefit to having a letter look as though it's been typewritten?
If I receive a direct mail letter from a charity, asking for money, I'm aware that this is a mass produced letter done on a computer, sent to a mailhouse, etc. How could an organization — United Way, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Humane Society, local food bank, etc., — possibly "type" a single letter to each individual it mails to? Furthermore, anyone under 30/35 (?) years old who gets the letter has probably never even used a typewriter! Am I just jaded because I'm in the field? Or is there some evidence that a letter that looks "typewritten" is more effective?
Mal answers: This is one of those maddeningly counterintuitive things about direct mail. You ask why. I respond, Because that's the way it is.
First, there is a question about the age of donors. I'm tempted to ask how old you are. Judging from your question, I think it's likely you're under the age of 50. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of direct mail donors are over 50. In some organizations, the average direct mail donor is 55, 60, 65, or even older. Statistically speaking, the people "under 30/35" that you mention are extremely unlikely to contribute by mail — and one of the reasons is simply that they're too young for many of them to have gained a philanthropic orientation. That giving mindset generally arrives around the age of 50.
Second, even though us old fogies know perfectly well that "everyone" has a computer these days, we don't all have the same level of comfort with computerization. In any case, I'm not referring here to a matter of logic — it's a question of feelings, most of them subconscious.
Third, yes, there is evidence that these "typewritten" letters work better in the mail. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous head-to-head tests — to determine such things as whether using a different typeface or adding photos or color might improve results. At best, a simple letter formatted in 12-point Times Roman has equaled a similar letter set in 12-point Courier. Anything else — adding flash and pizzazz with color or graphics — tends to reduce response.
Sorry to discourage you. But you have the option of testing for yourself. Who knows? Maybe your organization is different.
Response to Mal: Thanks for your quick response. After sending my question, I realized what you mentioned in your first point, that our donors are in fact over 55 years old. I'm in my early 40s.
For the last couple years, we have been doing letters in Arial or something similar, with no indentations. I will switch this year to courier, and indenting, and a "p.s." and see if I get better results.
Thanks for your input. I'm enjoying the book!
Does a blue signature really lift response?
Do you know if letters with a blue preprinted signature outperform letters with a black preprinted signature? Each time we add a blue preprinted signature to a letter -- to make it look as if the letter has been hand-signed by a real person -- it adds the cost of the extra color to the print job. But does it make enough of a difference in results to justify the cost?
Mal answers: This is one of those things that direct marketers seem to do reflexively, based on the assumption that sometime, somewhere, someone tested this question rigorously and proved that blue signatures outpulled black ones. I, for one, have never tested this proposition.
However, as a practical matter, the usual choice boils down to using either one color (black) for the letter, letterhead, signature and all, or using blue not just for the signature but on the letterhead as well. Typically, once you use a second color, you can apply it with little or no additional cost everywhere else on a letter -- including the other side of the sheet. And I *do* know that testing has shown -- for some mailers, under some circumstances -- that two-color printing tends to generate higher response than black only.
If you really want to nail this question, test it for yourself!
Should we print direct mail letters on both sides of the page?
I am an Annual Giving manager and I was a participant in the Association of Healthcare Professionals direct mail teleconference which you facilitated. I have also recently purchased 999 Tips, Trends and Guidelines, and I'm really enjoying it.
We are having a debate over our upcoming mailing and I was hoping you could give me a quick answer. Do you prefer printing your letter on one side of the page, or both sides? Is there a definitive argument for either? I appreciate you making your e-mail address available for the participants of the teleconference. I found it very informative. Thank you for any insight you can offer.
Mal Answers: Hi. As with everything else in direct mail (and in fundraising), the answer to this question is, "It depends." If you're taking pains to personalize a letter and printing it on high-quality stock—in other words, if you want it to look like a real letter—then, yes, using two pages probably makes sense. If you're sending a generic letter via bulk rate mail, it hardly seems worthwhile, and might even be perceived as wasteful.
Is it always necessary to use our own stationery?
We are preparing a solicitation letter to be signed by a community volunteer. The volunteer is the CEO of a prominent local business, and is known to be an enthusiastic fan of our efforts, but is not a board member or affiliated with us in any official way. The letter will solicit Annual Fund gifts from CEO's of other local businesses. Do you think it is more effective (and appropriate) to use our own stationery, or ask the volunteer if he is willing to use his company's official stationery and envelopes?
Mal answers: A letter to a CEO that comes from a prominent local business leader on his own stationery seems to me better calculated to provoke curiosity — and response — than one that appears to come from you. However, I would be certain to use a standard business envelope (i.e., no window), be sure that the CEO's name and title are "typed" in the upper left-hand corner above or below his company's logo and address, and that you either affix a first-class stamp to the envelope or run it through a postage meter.
In addition, I suggest that the response device enclosed with the letter be on your letterhead, and that the self-addressed reply envelope match your letterhead.
Is it okay to design unique stationery for holidays?
When sending direct mail solicitations (especially for Christmas and Mother's Day), is it better to create a unique stationery design for these mailings or stick to our company stationery? We've always sent direct mail solicitations on stationery designed around a theme, but I'm starting to wonder if that's confusing our constituency. Samples I see from other organizations are almost always on standard company letterhead. What do you think?
Mal answers: Your question raises two points. One is a matter of style. The other is about branding.
There's no doubt that many nonprofits design unique letterheads for appeals, particularly around holidays. As a general rule, I think this is fine — so long as the organization has strong brand identification. I've seen fine examples from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. In those cases, it's a stylistic question.
However, there's also the matter of branding, which is what you're alluding to when you suggest that your donors might be confused by the changing look of your appeals. In your case — in fact, in the case of the overwhelming majority of nonprofit organizations in America — I think it's safer to stick with the same look and feel, month after month, year in, year out.
Is it okay to list your board of directors on letterhead?
I had heard that it was best not to list the board of directors on letters of solicitation, that it can be distracting. Do have something in writing on this subject that you can share with me?
Mal answers: I'm sure I've referred to this matter somewhere in something I've written — probably in How to Write Successful Fundraising Letters — but I can't recall where. In any case, your recollection is correct: I advise almost all nonprofits not to list the names of their directors on letterhead used for solicitations. Lists of names always draw the eye; few people can resist reading them. So they definitely distract. Furthermore, most directors' self-image to the contrary notwithstanding, the people listed as directors are rarely known to the people who receive the appeals. If yours is a genuine exception to that rule, then I might reconsider. But most of us have an inflated idea of how well known we are in our communities.
Will listing the Board of Directors on our letterhead affect the response rate?
I oversee our direct mail program and one issue that is coming about right now is whether the listing of our board of directors on the first page of the letter will increase or decrease response. What do you think?
Mal answers: That depends on how well your directors are known. In a small community where the board consists of the best-known names in town, a charity might well benefit by displaying its board list on the side of its direct mail appeals. The same goes for a national organization that sports a truly star-studded board. But in any other circumstances, I believe that listing the board on the letterhead used in appeals is a mistake and is very likely to depress response.
The reason this is usually a poor idea is that lists of names invariably distract most readers. Lists get very high readership, and if your list isn't calculated to increase the credibility of your appeal, you're well-advised to leave it off. Many readers, seeing no names they recognize, will read no further.
What's the proper way to list tax deductibility information and member benefits?
Where can I find information about the proper way to state tax deductibility information about member benefits for a direct mail acquisition piece that I am preparing? The post office has rejected what I have submitted. Please advise, thank you!
Mal answers: My colleagues and I have done a little digging, and here's what we've come up with from Robert Tigner, who is general counsel of the Association of Direct Response Fund Raising Counsel in Washington, DC, and works as well with the Direct Marketing Association Nonprofit Federation:
"The big problem for us (and Rachel) is that we have to deconstruct her stated problem. She has, it appears, mixed and matched issues from differing regulatory turf.
"To be clear: USPS has no legal premise for ruling on the adequacy of "deductibility" information in a mail piece (at least none that leaps to mind, short of misrepresentation or fraud). Primarily, the deductibility disclosure rules are the province of the IRS.
"Since she specifically references "member benefits" (and seems clear about being "rejected" by the post office), my guess is that she's run afoul of the NPO eligibility restrictions we've all been wrestling with the latter half of the 90s. Those restrictions are set out in USPS Publ. 417 (with reasonable clarity, considering the complexity of the statute).
"If we're trying to help Rachel personally, we'll need much more info (like her rejection letter from USPS and a copy of her copy). Furthermore, anyone actually trying to wade through this would need to know that Publ. 417 has been, in effect, amended by subseqent rulings (two of which have loosened things up a bit -- one on premiums and one on member benefits)."
However, as you've already learned from my colleague Bill Rehm, here's what we suggest on a more concrete level (which I'm including for the benefit of others):
"This is the first instance I've heard of the Post Office rejecting an organization's tax-deductiblilty clause. My recommendation would be a hybrid of the two examples you cited -- to cover the legal requirements in a bit "friendlier" way. Something like the following, perhaps: "The value of the benefits below is $12, making $73 of your gift fully tax-deductible." I'm not an IRS expert (or even a lawyer), but I can't imagine how that clause could be rejected. Good luck.
Mal answers: I don't have a clue. My colleagues and I have tested ascending vs. descending gifts strings in donor appeals and have found a slight tendency for descending strings to encourage larger gifts. However, we've never done so on remittance envelopes, which are often used more widely than simply in communications with existing donors. In any case, I don't think the effect would be very great.
What should go in a letter soliciting auction items?
Our organization is a small nonprofit, and we are in our 2nd year of fundraising. This year one of our well-connected board members is hosting a small dinner in April. A small live and silent auction will be part of the evening. Committee members are just beginning to solicit auction items and have requested a generic letter that they can hand out to potential donors. My question: what needs to be in the letter?
Mal answers: For starters, I don't think it's a good idea for the letter to be generic. Ideally, it would be personalized and printed on board members' personal (or business) letterhead and signed personally by them. A generic letter in the mail, even coming from a board member, is unlikely to be effective.
Assuming you do those things, here are the essential elements I recommend:
A warm and friendly invitation to help support the important work you do at Learning, Inc. This is best conveyed through a couple of heartwarming stories about beneficiaries.
A concise description of the guidelines you've established for auction items — minimum or typical value, character of the items, etc. — along with two or three examples of the best items you've secured so far. However, be sure to urge people to use their imagination about what they might contribute!
A clear, one-page form allowing each donor to describe an item or items to be donated, along with the estimated (or minimum) value and the terms and conditions for delivery or pickup.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope.
Take it from there! Best of luck.
Do you have good sames of reply envelopes?
I am looking for some good samples of gift (reply) envelopes. What are your suggestions for making this effective and inviting?
Mal answers: I can't supply you with samples. The best I can do is suggest the following possible approaches:
** Include a version of your outer envelope teaser in the upper right-hand corner of your reply envelope. For instance, if the carrier reads "Enclosed: 2008 Annual Renewal," then use the same color and typeface to print ""2008 Annual Renewal Enclosed" on the reply envelope.
** Match the color of the reply envelope to the dominant color of the reply device, to reinforce visually the pairing of these two elements.
** If you use a photo in your letter or on the response device, print it in a smaller size in the upper left-hand column of your reply envelope.
You'd probably find that many reply envelopes are so-called BREs, or Business Reply Envelopes. This requires making arrangements with the U.S. Postal Service and paying fees for a special account. I do *not* recommend you do this. Once upon a time, we could count on boosting response by including BREs. In recent years I haven't found any advantage to justify the extra trouble and expense of maintaining the account at the Postal Service.
And if you do use BREs anyway, then I suggest you do *not* write in the upper left-hand corner of the reply envelope (as many charities do) "Your stamp here will save us money" or words to that effect. Though the pattern in results isn't entirely clear, the evidence I've seen suggests that this statement tends to depress response slightly.
Is it okay to insert a donor envelope with an acknowledgement letter?
My question has to do with inserting a donor envelope in with each acknowledgement letter that goes out to a donor. I know it's an accepted practice, but the Executive Director is not convinced it's the way for us to go. I need some support. Any suggestions where I might go to get some supportive documentation?
Mal answers: I wish I could help you straight up by pointing you to the documentary evidence you're looking for. Unfortunately, the question you ask is a bit more complicated than that.
It's true, of course, that it's a common practice to insert "donor envelopes" — presumably, either a wallet-flap remittance envelopes with standard suggested gift amounts, or simple reply envelopes — in donor acknowledgements. However, just because it's common doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do.
Of course, some nonprofits defray a large portion of the cost of thank-you letters in this fashion. Some even net tidy sums from the practice — especially when they include at least a soft ask in the acknowledgement letter itself.
However, I evaluate all direct mail practices in the light of the principles of relationship fundraising. I ask myself, "How would I like to be treated if I sent this organization a gift?" In truth, I would probably feel better treated — more appreciated — if I simply received a warm, personalized thank-you letter detailing how my gift would be put to work.
Some of my clients follow this approach. However, most of them still include response envelopes in their acknowledgements. I've compromised with many of them by suggesting a postscript on the thank-you letter along the following lines: "I'm really eager to stay in touch with you. If you have a question or a comment, please know that I want to hear from you. I'm enclosing a pre-addressed envelope with this letter for your convenience. Please feel free to use it at any time if you want to get in touch with me. Thank you again for your generosity!"
So, this wasn't what you were hoping for, but I hope it's food for thought.
Is there research regarding whether or not to include a return envelope in an acknowledgement?
Would you be willing to share any web sites, reports, articles or other sources that specifically address the issue of including a return envelope in a gift acknowledgement? Our organization currently includes one and I would like to change this practice. Solid and respected research or expert opinion would really help my case.
Mal answers: The only "research" I know of that might have been conducted bearing directly on this particular question is in the realm of direct mail testing, not either qualitative or quantitative market research. And there is very little testing conducted for one organization that will be useful for another, except in the most general way. So, no, I can't cite chapter and verse from research on precisely that question.
My response rests on more general research on donor motivation. I suggest you obtain a copy of Penelope Burk's excellent book, "Donor-Centered Fundraising." The gist of her findings — after extensive research in both Canada and the U.S. over many years — is that donors crave appreciation and information about the ways their gifts have been used and that they spurn efforts to hit them up again immediately after they've given a gift.
Is it OK to send a return envelope with a thank you?
If you're looking for certainty on this question, you're unlikely to find it. There is a dearth of research on fundraising. Instead of spinning your wheels in searching for statistical proof, I suggest that you call, say, 50 or 100 of your donors at random and ask them what they think. The mere fact you ask them for advice rather than money is an act of cultivation that will be a boon to your fundraising program. Is it OK to send a return envelope with a thank you?
Is it OK to send a return envelope with an acknowledgement? No appeal is made in the acknowledgement. However, the donor may want to receive more information about wills, bequest, CGA's, etc.
Mal answers: If you ask this question of most direct mail fundraisers, you'll probably be told that the answer is yes. In fact, it's a rule of thumb in traditional direct mail fundraising that it's a sin to pass up any opportunity to provide donors with a chance to give again.
My answer is different, though. I'm persuaded by recent research about donor attitudes that there is greater value in cultivating strong, long-term relationships — and that a prompt, warm, and informative gift acknowledgement is one of the essential elements in such a process.
Is a return envelope to a survey really necessary?
If your emphasis is on the Long-Term Value of your donors and not on the short-term revenue picture, I suggest you forego the opportunity to insert that return envelope in your thank-yous. Is a return envelope to a survey really necessary? Do you think statistically that one would get a better response rate if they were to include a business reply envelope with their donor survey, as opposed to nothing? I think so, but some of my colleagues are not convinced that it would be worth it. We unfortunately, cannot test this theory at the present time.
Mal answers: The answer to your question is, ABSOLUTELY YES! If you don't include a return envelope of any kind, the response rate is likely to be pathetically low. In fact, most surveys that are sent by professional market researchers include pre-addressed envelopes with first-class stamps on them. That's the format that's most likely to encourage response, even more than a BRE.
Is it okay to use a P.O. box on the return envelope?
Hello, Mal, you might know me as a long-time fan and one who often cites you as THE authority on Direct Mail. Are there any differences in response rates when a recipient charity uses a P. O. box printed on the return gift envelopes, as opposed to a street address?
Mal answers: This is one question my colleagues and I have never tested, to the best of my recollection. However, I routinely advise charities to use a street address because of reports from other practitioners that they have tested this and found street addresses to yield stronger response. Maybe this is just one of those matters that fall into the category of conventional wisdom (which is always suspect). But it does seem intuitively true: for a charity that's not well-known to readers, a street address might inspire more confidence that it's not a scam. By the same token, a well-established nonprofit such as the Red Cross or the Salvation Army shouldn't face that problem. (But this might not stop some suspicious recipients from calling the Red Cross or Salvation Army to ask whether the post office box is legitimate! And I'll bet that happens, too.)
Should we color code our envelopes or stamps?
I am working with a larger organization which runs a number of appeals, including an annual appeal, a "family" appeal directed to a different market, and a regional appeal. For coding purposes, we have printed separate envelopes - using different color codes - for each appeal. Now this organization wants to print ONE return envelope for all appeals and stamp them according to which appeal. I think that the color-coded return envelopes tailored for each appeal makes the most sense. What do you recommend?
Mal answers: My answer would depend on what you and your client mean by "stamping" and "return envelope." If they're referring to the use of rubber stamps, forget it. And there's no need to go to the trouble and extra expense of color-coding, either. Also, if you're talking about a self-contained remittance envelope -- usually called a "bang-tail" or "wallet-flap" envelope with ask amount printed on the flap -- there is a much better way to go.
Almost always, direct mail fundraising appeals work best when the package contains both a dedicated response device and a separate reply envelope. Combining the two elements in one remittance envelope is a mistake because (1) it eliminates the possibility of varying the text (and the ask amounts) on the envelopes according to appeal and individual donor history, and (2) response tends to be lower when this approach is used.
You'll get optimal results when you print on each response device both an ask amount (or an ask string) that's proportional to the donor's prior giving and a "keycode" that indicates both which appeal the response device was included in and the donor file segment in which that donor was included.
In all immodesty, I suggest you read my book, "Revolution in the Mailbox, Revised and Updated" to better understand this in context.
Is it appropriate to send membership cards to our donors?
We are considering sending membership cards to our donors. Do you have any thoughts on if they encourage more donors to renew, or if they might just be perceived as a waste of paper and their donation?
Mal answers: Allow me to paraphrase the language on the Crest Toothpast tube: Membership cards, when used in a professional program of donor or membership renewals, can be an effective incentive for supporters to renew their support.
What I mean by this is that, typically, I don't use membership cards except in a program in which donors think of themselves as members — because we've taught them to think that way. In a membership program — whether a benefits-oriented program such as one at an art museum, or a less tangibly oriented one at an organization like yours — membership cards provide a tangible badge of affiliation and a reminder that the donor's annual support is due.
Membership cards alone, sent just for the sake of sending them, will probably have little positive effect. In such a case, it seems more likely that you would generate complaints about wasting paper. Otherwise, the criticism should be limited.
Will a post card work as a member renewal mailing?
We intend to do our first year-end membership drive this year. We'll mail to all those who did not renew in response to our monthly renewal mailings (where each member received three letters unless they renewed). Would it be effective for the year-end mailing to be a post card with a beautiful Caribbean beach scene, a simple but powerful appeal and a request to call or email their membership dues?
Mal answers: You have an interesting idea, but I would embellish it. The post card -- which will need to be an oversized one, not the standard small tourist variety -- should also signal to your members that you'll soon be sending them a letter. That letter -- an indispensable element in any direct mail campaign -- could go 7-10 days later. It would include both a response device and a pre-addressed return envelope. The letter could detail some of the highlights of how members' dues or gifts have been used in the past year and point to the priorities for the year ahead. Good luck, and thank you for writing!
Should we include a brochure in an acquisition mailing?
I wonder if you could specifically address the question of including a brochure in an acquisition mailing? My reading seems to indicate that most people discourage it. Why? Is there some specific research and testing that has been done to demonstrate this?
Mal answers: Hi and thanks for writing! I'm one of those who discourages the use of brochures in acquisition mailings because — in the tests I've observed over the years — the addition of the brochure has failed to lift returns . . . almost all the time. There are exceptions, and there are a couple of basic guidelines to follow:
* The letter itself must make the case fully, spelling out all the benefits to a person who responds, so that a brochure isn't really needed.
* If you use a brochure anyway, it needs to be one that is specific to the particular mailing and reinforce the case for giving, not just tell the overall story as in a general organizational brochure.
I would wish you good luck, but I know how well the Sacred Heart League does direct mail, so I'll just bid you "Keep up the good work!"
Can you provide some usable tips on brochure copy and layout?
In the not-for-profit brochure arena, what are usable tips on copy and layout? Could you please tell me what you would suggest as far as this goes?
Mal answers: I wish I could give you a satisfactory answer in this email. Alas, the subject is far too broad.
For starters, I edited (and partially wrote) an entire book on that subject. It's called Type & Layout. The book is out of print now, unfortunately, but 5,000 copies were sold, so there must be some in libraries. The author, who lives in Australia, told me recently that a publisher there is interested in bringing out a new edition, but I've heard nothing since, and I'm not holding my breath.
The only pointer I can give you now is that it would be a mistake to produce a brochure for a nonprofit organization without incorporating a "coupon" that would allow readers to fill in name and address information, select a donation amount, and mail the form back to the organization. Almost always, such a form should be placed on the outside edge of the brochure, so that it only has to be perforated or cut along two edges, making it as simple as possible.
Should our newsletter be part of a fundraising mailing?
Would you recommend sending the newsletter with a request for donations? To save on postage etc.
Mal answers: I assume you mean, would I recommend including a newsletter in a special appeal or donor renewal letter? My answer to that question is a flat NO. Forget the modest postage expense. A newsletter is one of those things that a donor is likely to toss on a stack of unread reading material to be looked at "later." The rest of the package is just as likely to be tossed unceremoniously in the trash. I advise you to keep those mailings separate.
How will a newsletter impact the response to our appeals?
We are planning to send out a Spring Appeal at the end of April, and a follow-up mid-June. Just last month we went to a new newsletter format (11 x 17 folded, seperate reply coupon/envelope, all mailed in a #10 envelope), and have had a tremendous response in terms of # gifts and revenue. Our next newsletter is scheduled to drop late May. I see the newsletter as important, as it reports on donor gifts, but will it negatively impact on the follow-up appeal? What would you suggest we do?
Mal answers: Congratulations on your success with the new newsletter format! You're definitely on the right track.
It's likely that an intensive schedule of newsletters and appeals will, indeed, begin to reduce the response to individual mailings. More important, you'll need to determine whether you're overloading your donors with too many Asks. In my own experience, it has generally been optimal to alternate appeals and newsletters every couple of months. A six-week rotation would represent a more intensive schedule. Monthly Asks are risky, because many donors resent being asked so often.
Keep in mind that, above all, your job is to build relationships with your donors. Every communication needs to contribute toward that goal.
One of the questions you might ask yourself under these circumstances is the following: with newsletters offering additional opportunities for donors to give, do you really need to do followups to your appeals? Tentatively, barring evidence to the contrary, I assume that that would be the wiser course. However, I've never been a big fan of "followup" appeals as a regular feature of a fundraising program.
Should we insert our holiday appeal letter within our newsletter?
Between now and the end of the year, we have plans to mail our supporters an annual holiday appeal as well as a quarterly newsletter. I'm concerned about inundating them with mail. We're now considering three options: 1) an appeal letter at Thanksgiving (we're a hunger organization) followed by a newsletter with a remit envelope in mid-December; 2) a newsletter followed by the holiday appeal; or 3) an appeal on the front page of the newsletter, with a follow-up appeal letter in mid-December. Any general thoughts?
Mal answers: It looks to me as though all three of the options you're considering consist of two efforts by mail. So the overall volume of mail won't vary, regardless of which option you choose. The question then becomes whether one of these options is likely to be more effective than the others.
For an anti-hunger organization such as yours, Thanksgiving seems to be the prime giving opportunity for your donors. So I'd advise you to send an appeal letter well in advance of Thanksgiving, no matter what else you decide to do. Using the newsletter itself as a vehicle for the Ask is a mistake. A few nonprofits get away with it. But most don't.
What's the best response vehicle for a newsletter or annual report?
As a follow-up to an appeal at Thanksgving, I suggest you consider an early-December newsletter accompanied not by a remittance envelope but by a cover letter, a response device tailored to the specific language of the letter, and a reply envelope. The cover letter itself is the main vehicle for the Ask, but it should refer to the newsletter to highlight the arguments for giving. What's the best response vehicle for a newsletter or annual report?
I'm working on a general brochure for a hospital foundation. We'd like to include a vehicle for potential donors to make a gift. We'd like it to be as cost effective as possible, but don't want to sacrifice in terms of response. Could you tell me what format works best in your experience? We have considered a tear off with adhesive (postage paid), but this is very expensive. Are donors willing to put a reply device in an envelope and pay the postage?
Mal answers: In my experience, the best response vehicle in a newsletter or annual report — or a larger, booklet-type brochure — is a wallet-flap (or "bang-tail") reply envelope. I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that donors supply their own stamps, since recent experience suggests that Business Reply postage doesn't necessarily improve results (as it once did). This format would allow you to make the case for giving on the large flap that extends from the back of the envelope.
With this said, however, I suggest that you do not have high expectations for response from a brochure of this sort. Typically, response is barely a small fraction of one percent. It's improved when a brochure is mailed along with a cover letter that makes a strong case for giving — but in such a case you'd be better off telling your story in the letter rather than including a brochure, which tends to depress response.
What should be included in a Capital Campaign mailing?
We are working on a direct mail appeal to raise funds for our Capital Campaign. Is it better to use an oversize envelope or a #10 envelope? Should we send a brochure detailing the campaign projects or write a longer letter to make the case?
Mal answers: There are no rules in matters of this sort, only experience and instincts. Based on those factors (and not on quantitative test data), I suggest you think about the following points:
(1) A capital campaign is a big deal -- not just another special appeal. Consider developing a real direct response campaign to capitalize on it, employing a series of contacts using direct mail, telemarketing, and online communications to build anticipation and maximize participation.
(2) The size and shape of the envelope aren't themselves significant factors. I could imagine writing letters to your donors that use *both* the #10 and a 9 x 12" (or otherwise oversize envelope). What's important is that you use formats that are appropriate to the contents of the package. For example, I wouldn't send two sheets of letter-sized paper in a 9 x 12" envelope. I think that would look a little foolish.
(3) Typically, brochures depress rather than enhance direct mail results. Under special circumstances, however, they're almost a must -- and a capital campaign seems to be one of those. I suggest you take pains to make the brochure relevant to the donors you're writing -- i.e., not highlight $50,000 naming opportunities when addressing $50 donors. I also urge you to include a lot of "you" language, giving readers the opportunity to picture themselves as important participants in the campaign.
Is there a "best format" for mailings designed to encourage church donations?
I'm looking for information about best formats to encourage donations for churches — #9 and reply card? Versus remit envelope? Versus adding a brochure that explains donations or not adding the extra brochure?
Mal answers: Hoo, boy! You want to know the "best formats?" If I knew, I would be very happy to tell you. However, once again I'm forced to fall back on Warwick's Universal Law of Fundraising:
It depends.
The reality is, nonprofit mailers annually spend hundreds of thousands — probably millions — of dollars testing formats. Lo and behold, they find that (a) the format matters but (b) there are no universal rules that predict what will work best. If you want to delve into this topic, you might check out my book, Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3: Raise More Money with Direct Mail Tests. However, I can assure you that the core message in that book is the following:
It depends.
Nonetheless, I'll go this far out on a limb: a brochure is not likely to improve response. You'd be better off incorporating the information in your proposed brochure into the letter, and, if necessary, lengthening the letter as a result.
Will mailing a CD be cost-effective?
I am writing an appeal now for a special building project to 4,500 current donors. Our immediate goal is to raise $50,000, and this letter is just part of a larger fundraising effort. The head of this project was considering including in the appeal package a CD with a 3-minute video viewable on PC. The video is a sharp, well-done overview of the audio/video training ministry that will be housed in the new building.
My question is, any gut feeling or experience as to whether the response rate is likely to be significantly improved by the CD, improved enough to justify the cost?
Mal answers: I have no experience with the use of CD-ROMS in fundraising. I've used videocassettes before, with some success -- occasionally considerable success -- but almost always with high-dollar donor lists. If those 4,500 donors of yours have given gifts of less than $100, I suspect the cost will not be recovered. In fact, you'd probably be better off sending a smaller number to people whose giving levels are higher still.
Should our Christmas appeal have a music CD as a front-end or back-end premium?
We're creating a Christmas CD with music performed by some of the men in our one-year drug rehab program, as well as recordings of some of their stories. Would you recommend that we include this CD as a front-end gift to each person we mail to, send it to just a portion of our mailing list (ie. those who have given a gift, or combination of gifts, totalling $100 or more in the past year), or simply offer it as a premium for those who respond to our mailing?
Mal answers: Believe it or not, there are people in this world who don't possess CD players! In fact, I suspect that at least a fair portion of your donors are older folks, some of whom might never have even considered buying CD players.
There's another reason for caution: even people who have CD players might not be interested in receiving your CD — perhaps because they're interested in other types of music, perhaps because they don't want to think you're spending money on them.
So, of the options you suggest, I would go for using the CD as a back-end premium, with gifts of $100 or more. I would also include a check-box permitting donors to opt out of receiving the disc.
Should we include magnets in our packets?
Our small local organization sends out a quarterly newsletter to a list of about 4,500 interested parties (includes colleagues, client families, policy makers, professionals, advocates, and past donors). Annually our Board also writes personal letters to lists of their friends/colleagues to solicit donations from them. This "friend-raiser" is fairly successful. We haven't done any other direct mail solicitation. This year we are also going to do an end-of-year direct mail to the newsletter list. It will include a #10 envelope, a letter (probably 2 pages, possibly longer), a reply device, and a BRE.
Two questions:
(1) The Director has suggested that we include a refrigerator magnet in this mailing, because it would be nice to give our donors a thank you gift and because it has a message on it that we want to spread. The magnet has some sweet words about the beauty and value of a nurturing family. The organization's biggest asset is its reputation for integrity, nurturing, sincerity, doing the right thing. I'm thinking that a refrigerator magnet (even one with a beautiful sentiment) seems like a cheap gimmick, thus, conflicting with the organization's reputation, and so, should be avoided. Thoughts?
(2) Our Board wants us to exclude from the mailing their friends who responded to their personal solicitation letters 2 months earlier, as they don't want their friends to feel like they are being harassed by us. Good idea? Thanks so much for your opinions! I enjoy your website!
Mal answers: I'm glad you enjoy our Web site. I suggest you sign up for our monthly e-newsletter, which features lots of fresh articles on the same themes. It's available on our home page, www.malwarwick.com.
Now for your two questions . . .
I tend to side with you on this question of the refrigerator magnet. Your Director is certainly right in the intention to show appreciation to your donors. But not all donors are happy to receive tschotchkes like refrigerator magnets. They may react much as you predict. Better to be lavish in your praise of their generosity when you write to them. In fact, my hunch is that a better "gift" would be to insert the Director's business card, a signal of your openness as an organization and of the importance you place on support from your donors. Chances are slim there would be many calls or emails. It's a gesture, really, and may be very appreciated.
I also differ with the perspective of your board about including their friends in your year-end mailing. A warm, informative, appreciative letter is hardly "harrassment." Your board's reluctance to include their friends rests on what I consider to be an unfortunate misunderstanding about the nature of fundraising: an Ask, when politely phrased and put in the proper context, is not an imposition. It's an opportunity to fulfill one's most deeply seated values and beliefs about the interdependence of the human race and the virtue of helping those who need our help.
What is a "new donor welcome package" and where can I view a sample of one?
Mal, I am so new to our organization, I don't even know our annual budget. But it is over $1 million, I am certain of that. I have been diligently reading all of your "Ask Mal" sections - and they are excellent!! I am new to direct mail and am learning a lot. Thank you! Here's my question - in several of your answers a "new donor welcome package" is mentioned. What is this and where can I view a sample of this? Also, living in the Baltimore/DC metro area, are there list brokers you recommend? I would feel much more comfortable having the use of a consultant - just for a few hours of time - what is the best way to convince my boss that this is a good investment?
Mal answers: I've written about welcome packages in my book, Revolution in the Mailbox, Revised and Updated, in Chapter 13. If you don't have a copy of the book, you may want to get one. It's a comprehensive approach to the business of direct mail fundraising. However, that particular chapter is available online on our Web site at http://www.malwarwick.com/learning-resources/book-detail/Revolution13.pdf. In fact, there's a *ton* of free information available on the site. You can use the search function to find all kinds of goodies.
List brokers? Washington, DC, is practically home base for the direct mail fundraising industry, since so many large advocacy organizations are based there. You can check on fundraising list brokers in the area. There are many, I'm sure. The one I've done business with there is CELCO (the Carol Enters List Company). You can easily find them online. They're very good.
Sign Up