Positives or Negatives? Neither?

Recently, one of the students from our Certificate in Fundraising Copywriting class asked in one of our discussion forums the following question:

“I understand that powerful emotive words like “heart-breaking loneliness, unbearable or agonising” would increase giving, but I find myself very uncomfortable when I have been using that technique in my copy. I want to help people feel better… I don't want to have to make them feel bad by pointing out that people are heartbreakingly lonely. And then to turn it around to make them feel good about making a difference to that heart-breaking loneliness. Or to make them feel like they are a good person because they feel bad about a situation.

I would really appreciate some thoughts from yourself and the other tutors about this.”

This is such a good question, one that sits in the hearts of many fundraisers.

Very often when they voice this concern, their voice is drowned out by others who feel they know better. Fundraisers are routinely taught that they must present the problem, the severity of the problem, the heartbreak of the problem, because fundraising is about presenting an urgent problem that donors can solve, now! So, the argument runs that we need to use negative messages in our communications because they work better than positive ones. Nothing says “case closed” like a happy smiley face.

I have had similar experiences. When I started to test the PhilPsych™ way of raising money, I was told:

 “Jen, you are not going to become one of those people who go warm and fluffy on people and lose charities money, are you?”

“Jen, negatives raise more money than positives.”

“Jen, you don’t know what you are talking about. We have proven that negative messaging works – and particularly in new donor acquisition.”

To anyone who might suffer the same critique, I would offer the following

Don’t silence your voice, listen to it.

For starters, the evidence on positive versus negative messaging is not that clear cut. Test a poor example of positive messaging against a half decent negative message and you can guess which one wins. It is very easy to confuse an exemplar with a concept and professional testing can tend to do that. How many times have we heard “oh we tried that – and it didn’t work” as though their one exemplar was the only way to write a positive email, mailpack or newsletter.

From our perspective though, the positive versus negative messaging debate is not the right debate to be having. Rather we should be seeking to fundraise in a way that is meaningful for the donor and delivers them the opportunity to enhance their wellbeing.

We are NOT advocating here for the use of only smiling faces, or banal language that doesn’t reflect the reality faced by many people in need of urgent help. Neither are we advocating for the weakening of our emotional storytelling.

No. What we are advocating is an approach that helps donors build deeper connections with those they help in the midst of their suffering. So as a fundraiser will we focus on the building of that connection or just an ever more graphic portrayal of the suffering. We’re not suggesting softening the need, rather, that we can change the way in which we connect that need to the donor.

When USA for UNHCR started to rework their supporter communications, they told the story of little Walid. Only 6 years old he recently suffered from fluid in the brain and his dad could not afford the cost of his treatment. Obviously the family was devastated, and the email the charity sent made that heartbreak clear. But none of this stops them from grounding their approach in a way that could build connection – one parent to another. Their email opened thus:

“Walid’s parents have always adored their little boy.

Even as they fled their bombed-out home, his smile brightened their days. His boundless zest for life gave them the strength they needed to keep going.”

Writing copy in this way focuses attention on building the connection between the donor and the family. It forges a deep connection for the donor with the loving parents who are suffering. That newly created bond opens the door to the experience of compassion. Donors feel the pain, but they experience it in a way that allows their love to bond with the deep love of the parents to care for little Walid and end his suffering.

When deep suffering is portrayed this way, it does not overwhelm people with compassion fatigue. Instead, it builds donors’ sense of well-being as a consequence of their help. This approach is consistent with the neuroscience research that makes it clear that when we shock people into distress, they are less likely, not more likely, to help others, because in that critical moment they have to shift their attention away from others and toward themselves in order to preserve their own well-being (Bornemann et al, 2016). What makes the portraying of this deep suffering less shocking is the connection built in the communication between the donors and little Walid’s family. That connection helps donors regulate the emotion by giving to others, not by protecting themselves.

Of course there are many scenarios where both positive and negative emotions could be aroused by a fundraising communication. The choice between which one ought be used, should not be taken on the basis of the prevailing wisdom that either negative (or positive) emotion is good – but rather on the extent to which the portrayal can build a connection capable of delivering compassion. Compassion should be the goal because it creates a channel though which the donor can offer their love - not just their money. That bonding in love will ultimately build the highest level of supporter wellbeing. And yes, that does mean raising more money too…

Prof Jen Shang

May 2022

References

Bornemann, B., Kok, B. E., Boeckler, A., & Singer, T. (2016). Helping from the heart: Voluntary upregulation of heart rate variability predicts altruistic behavior. Biological psychology, 119, 54-63.