Computer analysis proves that fundraising copy sucks

If you fed a million fundraising letters into a text-analyzing computer, I bet you'd get back a message of: MAKE IT STOP!

Well, someone pretty much did that -- the text-analyzing, not the making it stop.

Frank Dickenson of Claremont Graduate University, in a study called "The Way We Write Is All Wrong," says he subjected 1.5 million words of fundraising communication to a "linguistic MRI" and discovered that those words were, well, not so great. Among other problems, he found that the fundraising copy:

1. Lacks linguistic features that create an interpersonal, emotional connection with readers (e.g. personal verbs like I feel and I think and contractions.
2. Lacks linguistic features that produce narrative (e.g. past tense verbs and quoted speech). In fact, their texts contain less narrative than academic prose, and even less than official documents!

I'm shocked -- shocked! This research agrees with what almost anybody who spends any time looking at the way nonprofits communicate already knows: Most fundraising copy is wooden, artificial, dull, and ineffective. Furthermore:

The evidence of neuroscience suggests that the current style of writing dominant among fund raisers actually circumvents the way the human brain is hard-wired to process language. The implications: fund raisers should not shy away from emotion, they should tell stories, and they should not over-edit and formalize texts.

Amen, brother Frank. (I'd be even more impressed if the study included correlations between problems in copy and fundraising results. After all, the one measure of copy's quality that really matters is effectiveness at accomplishing its purpose, which is revenue.)

Here's my theory why fundraising copy is the way it is: Committees. The best writing in the world is not going to survive the consensus-driven, CYA-focused, everyone-has-a-say process of most nonprofits. If it wasn't dead yet, it will be by the time the committee is done with it.

There's one very bright silver lining to this dark cloud: If you can beat the system and write good fundraising copy, you will stand out from the pack. You'll be miles ahead of everyone else, a breath of fresh air to donors used to the anesthetic quality of most of the fundraising they read.

Do check out Mr. Dickenson's research: the executive summary (4 pages) or the full study (36 pages; both PDF).

Thanks to The Accidental Marketer for the tip.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, research

Comments

[Frank Dickerson]

Hi Jeff.

Glad you were able to post something about my linguistics study.

The point of the research is that as we write for a nonprofit cause, we essentially become the VOICE of PHILANTHROPY--literally the VOICE of the FRIEND of MAN. If we think about how we might advocate (either in print or speech) for our own son, daughter, mother, or father . . . that image captures the essence of what is missing in most fund-raising discourse. It lacks the passion that would be present were we making an appeal for someone we care about.

While this is a descriptive study (not tied to high or low performing copy, as measured by money raised) it does act as a mirror that reflects the reality about how we use language. But like a mirror, it only reflects reality and cannot change it. That requires knowing how to write better. The longer dissertation addresses that.

[Al Catelli]

Couldn't agree with you more (especially about committees/Boards). Human beings are not creatures of logic - but creatures of emotion. Emotion sells. Logic supports.

[Jen Love]

Great post! When charities stop talking ABOUT themselves and start talking TO their supporters that would help too!

[Don Akchin]

Jeff -
Thanks for the shout-out.
Don @TheAccidentalMarketer

[Rachel S.]

Am I the only one who's observed a startling irony in this work? This misguided (and pseudo-scientific) publication has proved that fundraising copy sucks by . . . reproducing it for the world to read!

Who writes a FOUR PAGE executive summary? And not only is Mr. Dickenson a fundraising expert (has he even closed a gift?), but apparently he's a brain scientist as well.

My two cents: this is complete "baloney". Any decent writer with common sense could get that document into a page. The real measure of a writers' skill? Economy.