Posts tagged ‘credibility’

November 8, 2019

3 Election-Inspired Tips for More Powerful Fundraising

Nonprofit fundraising professionals can learn three powerful tips from the US presidential candidates that will help inspire greater support.

Now that the November 2019 elections in the US are behind us, the media and the public will focus their attention increasingly on the 2020 presidential race. As the campaign for The White House heats up, there are already things you can glean from this election season that will help you and your charity.

Fox News recently interviewed pollster Frank Luntz about how the candidates are communicating their messages. Regardless of how you feel about the network or the researcher, you can pick-up great communication insights from them.

Specifically, Luntz shared what he believes to be the three elements of powerful, persuasive communications:

1. Credible. It’s not enough for a message to be true. It must also be believable. When sharing stories about those your charity helps, you might choose to highlight a less dramatic, but more believable example, rather than one that is extreme but that might invite suspicion. Or, if you do share a story that stretches belief, you might want to cite a third-party source (i.e., a published news report). In a mailing or face-to-face visit, for example, you could even provide a newspaper clipping that supports the story you share. When citing statistics, providing the source can lend credibility.

In one of her presidential campaign ads, Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlights her unexpected victory over incumbent Sen. Scott Brown in 2012 to demonstrate her political skill and her ability to surprise the pundits. In one of his campaign ads, former Vice President Joe Biden cited a number of polls to support his claim that he is the best positioned Democrat to unseat President Donald Trump. In other words, both candidates sought to establish credibility by documenting their claims.

If recipients of your message don’t believe it, they’ll dismiss it. You’ll lose the opportunity to cultivate, engage, or generate support. While your message needs to standout and capture attention, it has to be believable.

2. Memorable. To be effective, messaging must be memorable. By definition, successful education or cultivation requires a lasting impact. If someone receives your direct-mail appeal and sets it aside to deal with later, they’ll only respond if they remember it and remember what moved them. If someone sees an advertisement for your cause, they won’t talk about it with friends unless they remember it.

In one of Trump’s campaign ads, the narrator says, “Mister Nice Guy won’t cut it. It takes a tough guy to change Washington.” Luntz asserts that the “Mister Nice Guy” line combined with the images of Trump looking tough result in a memorable ad. The rhetoric is unusual for a political ad while being in alignment with the candidate’s image. By contrast, the Biden ad that talks about his ability to beat Trump uses footage that, for the most part, doesn’t support the narration and, instead, features bland, standard political glad-handing images. By contrast with the Trump ad, the Biden commercial is less memorable.

The most effective messages are the ones that are memorable. Words and images must support one another to maximize effectiveness.

read more »

September 13, 2013

$250 Million Gift to a Nonprofit is Withdrawn … Sort of

The news headlines were stunning:

Centre College Loses $250-Million Gift — Chronicle of Higher Education 

Centre College Loses $250 Million Gift After “Market Event” — Bloomberg 

Kentucky College Loses $250 Million Gift from Charitable Trust — Reuters 

There’s only one problem with the headlines: There never was a $250 million “gift” to Centre College!

Here are four lessons you can learn from this amazing public relations fiasco:

1. Do NOT mislead the public.

Perhaps the news media can be forgiven for getting the story wrong. After all, Centre College proudly announced on July 30, 2013: “Centre College receives historic gift to establish Brockman Scholars Program.” The official announcement began:

Centre College has received a gift of $250 million in the form of stock in Universal Computer Systems Holding, Inc. (Reynolds and Reynolds) from the A. Eugene Brockman Charitable Trust to establish the Brockman Scholars Program in Leadership and Entrepreneurship.”

Unfortunately, as recent events have demonstrated, the announcement was not just premature it was not true. The fact is that Centre College did not receive a $250 million gift. Peter Lattman, writing for Deal Book/ New York Times, quoted Centre College President John Roush as saying:

In retrospect, we might have put a big asterisk on this thing, but no one had any inkling that this would come about.”

The historic gift was a contingent pledge based on a complex recapitalization deal Centre College - Old Centregoing through. Regrettably, the financial deal blew up and, therefore, the gift never materialized, according to the College.

If the College had simply delayed announcing the gift until it actually materialized, it could have avoided enormous embarrassment. Alternatively, if the College had simply characterized the $250 million as a “pledge” or “potential gift” rather than a “gift,” it still could have avoided significant embarrassment.

2. Recognize the difference between a “pledge” and a “gift.”

Centre College had a contingent pledge for a $250 million gift. They never had the gift. It’s not a gift until you have the cash, stock, property, or irrevocable gift agreement in-hand.

Because the College never had a $250 million gift, it did not lose $250 million. That’s about the best that can be said of this situation. This is really just a case of a nonprofit organization publicly counting its chickens before they hatched. Don’t make the same mistake.

read more »

%d bloggers like this: