In this article, we report experimental evidence on the effectiveness of several techniques of persuasion commonly utilized in direct-mail solicitation. The study is built on theory-based, descriptive models of fundraising discourse and on comparisons of recommended and actual practices related to three dimensions of persuasion: rhetorical, visual, and linguistic. The specific rhetorical variable included is persuasive appeal (rational, credibility, or affective). The visual variable selected for the study is the presence or absence of bulleted lists, and the linguistic variable included is readability or the complexity of exposition. Participants were presented with pairs of fictive direct-mail appeals from imaginary universities that differ in these dimensions and asked to allocate a hypothetical US$100 across each pair. Results suggest that letters utilizing credibility appeals and letters written at a high level of readability produce the highest donations.
Abelen, E., Redeker, G., & Thompson, S.A. (1993). The rhetorical structure of U.S.-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text, 13, 323-350.
2.
Bazerman, C. ( 1997). Some informal comments on texts mediating fund-raising relationships: Cultural sites of affiliation. In U. Connor (Ed.), Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising: Issues of language and rhetoric (Working Paper98-13, pp. 17-26). Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
3.
Bekkers, R., & Crutzen, O. ( 2007). Just keep it simple: A field experiment on fundraising letters. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 1-8.
4.
Berger, P.D., & Smith, G.E. ( 1997). The effect of direct mail framing strategies and segmentation variables on university fundraising performance. Journal of Direct Marketing, 11, 30-43.
5.
Bhatia, V.K. ( 1998). Generic patterns in fundraising discourse. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 22, 95-110.
6.
Connor, U. (Ed.). (1997). Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising. Issues of language and rhetoric (Working Paper 98-13). Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy .
7.
Connor, U., & Gladkov, K. ( 2004). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising direct mail letters . In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.). Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 257-286). Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
Connor, U., & Wagner, L. ( 1998). Language use in grant proposals by nonprofits: Spanish and English. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising: Understanding and Improving the Language of Fundraising, 22, 59-73.
10.
Crismore, A. ( 1997). Visual rhetoric in an Indiana University Foundation Annual Report. In U. Connor (Ed.), Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising: Issues of language and rhetoric (Working Paper 98-13, pp. 64-100). Indianapolis : Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
11.
Desmet, P., & Feinberg, F.M. (2003). Ask and ye shall receive: The effect of the appeals scale on consumers’ donation behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 349-376.
12.
Diamond, W.D., & Gooding-Williams, S. (2002). Using advertising constructs and methods to understand direct mail fundraising appeals. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12, 225-242.
13.
Eckel, C.C., & Grossman, P.J. (2008). Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies . Experimental Economics, 11, 234-252.
14.
Falk, A. ( 2004). Charitable giving as a gift exchange: Evidence from a field experiment (CESifoWorking Paper 1218). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
15.
Fraser, C., Hite, R.E., & Sauer, P.L. ( 1988). Increasing contributions in solicitation campaigns: The use of large and small anchor points. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 284-287.
16.
Graves, R. ( 1997). Dear friend (?): Culture and genre in American direct marketing letters. Journal of Business Communications, 34, 235-252.
17.
Handy, F. ( 2000). How we beg: The analysis of direct mail appeals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 439-454.
18.
Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. ( 2007). The impact of exemplars on responsibility stereotypes in fund-raising letters. Communication Research, 34, 596-617.
19.
Katzev, R.D. ( 1995). Applying social psychology to charitable donations: Three experiments on nonprofit fundraising (Final Report). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund .
20.
LaTour, S.A., & Manrai, A.K. ( 1989). Interactive impact of informational and normative influence on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 327-335.
21.
Lauer, J. ( 1997). Fundraising letters. In U. Connor (Ed.), Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising: Issues of language and rhetoric (Working Paper98-13, pp. 101-108). Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
22.
List, J.A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 215-233.
23.
Myers, G. ( 1997). Wednesday morning and the millennium: Notes on time in fund-raising texts. In U. Connor (Ed.), Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising: Issues of language and rhetoric (Working Paper98-13, pp. 121-134). Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy .
24.
Parsons, L. ( 2001). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on contributions to not-for-profit organizations: A field-based experiment (Working Paper). Available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=406760orDOI:10.2139/ssrn.406760.
25.
Perrine, R.M., & Heather, S. ( 2000). Effects of picture and even-a-penny-will-help appeals on anonymous donations to charity. Psychological Reports, 86, 551-559.
26.
Reingen, P. ( 1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 110-118.
27.
Smith, G. ( 1996). Asking properly: The art of creative fundraising. London: The White Lion Press.
28.
Smith, G.E., & Berger, P.D. ( 1996). The impact of direct marketing appeals on charitable marketing effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 219-231.
29.
Stone, R.A. ( 1992). The mass plaintiff: Public interest law, direct mail fundraising and the donor/client. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 25, 197-241.
30.
Turner, T., & Yeakel, A.R. ( 1994). The University of Texas Law School Foundation: Small shop, big results. Fund Raising Management, 25, 24-28.
31.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice . Science, 211, 453-458.
32.
Upton, T.A. ( 2002). Understanding direct mail letters as a genre. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(1), 65-85.
33.
Vasilopolous, T., Goering, E.M., & Nagelhout, E. ( 2004, November). Development and implications of a taxonomy for fundraising letters. Paper presented at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) , Los Angeles, CA.
34.
Vriens, M., van der Scheer, H.R., Hoekstra, J.C., & Bult, J.R. ( 1998). Conjoint experiments for direct mail response optimization . European Journal of Marketing, 32, 323-339.
35.
Warren, P.E., & Walker, I. ( 1991). Empathy, effectiveness and donations to charity: Social psychology’s contribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 325-337.
36.
Warwick, M. ( 2000). The five strategies for fundraising success: A mission-based guide to achieving your goals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Weyant, J.M., & Smith, S.L. ( 1987). Getting more by asking for less: The effects of request size on donations of charity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 17, 392-400.
38.
Wheildon C. ( 2005). Type and layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes. Gainesville, FL: Worsley Press, FAP Books.
