Just say yes! the rhetoric of charitable-contribution reply forms

Abstract

Introduction There can be little doubt that direct-mail solicitation is a booming industry, whether for mail-order businesses or fundraising for charitable or political organizations. Bessie Thibodeaux (abstract) claimed in 1999 that up to 70% of a fundraising campaign’s income may be obtained through direct mail, and other statistics are available to show the impact this practice has on the flow of money in the US (at the least). Even though 2001’s anthrax scares put a dent in mail advertising (see Foust 14; Harrison Y7), there can be little doubt that this industry remains a pervasive presence in our lives. Given the power of direct mail, it is also no wonder that much has been written, both descriptively and prescriptively, about the graphic and linguistic features of successful mailings, with journals like Fund Raising Management and Direct Marketing devoting much of their space to this topic. While the history of solicitation or dunning letters evidently goes back centuries (see, for example, Kitty Locker’s article analyzing dunning letters from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries), the art and analysis of direct marketing can be argued to have reached its peak in the past two decades, at least if the proliferation of how-to articles is any indication. Some authors clearly place great importance on the total package—James Rosenfield (‘‘Re-thinking’’), for instance, offers advice on the graphics and language of everything from envelope surfaces to brochures, letters, and response cards (see also Carol Enters, RobertHemmings, ChuckMuth, and Edward Nash)—while others concentrate on more specific elements. Thus, William Vartorella points out common mistakes made in direct-mail packaging; Mal Warwick focuses on 11 copywriting rules for direct mailings; and Jeffrey Dobkin discusses the features of the solicitation letter itself (‘‘The Art’’; ‘‘Hot Tips’’), as does Dean Rieck. But how many recipients of junk mail (to be brutally honest about this form of correspondence) actually take the time to read, or even look at, the letters enclosed? If I am at all typical, most people who even bother to open direct mailings will simply flip through the contents to identify the sender (surprisingly often uncertain from the outside of the envelope), see if any goodies have been enclosed (coins, bumper stickers, return-address labels, etc.), and—if any item is read at all—look over the reply form for further information to weigh in deciding whether a donation or response is called for (most importantly for me, whether an annual renewal of a membership or donation is due). Alan Douglas believes that ‘‘reply cards are the ugly ducklings in the magazine publishing family’’ (70), and one suspects this is probably true in fundraising and other forms of direct mail, as well; the letters and brochures are what writers find more challenging and so more rewarding to design for maximum sales impact. And yet, Douglas argues, ‘‘... who really gets revved up about reply cards? Nobody important—just the readers and advertisers’’ (70), while Con Squires states that ‘‘the reply slip is the key factor in how much the donor decides to give—rather than the letter.’’ Whether or not marketers agree that response forms are the key to their success, it is certainly true that considerable attention is paid to the form and its content. For general impact, Squires and Rosenfield (‘‘Re-thinking’’) both provide advice about attaching the card to the soliciting letter, and Squires also presents in some detail a sequence of suggested donation amounts, with accompanying language, designed to entice would-be donors into giving more than they might have originally been planning on. Hemmings recommends writing the reply card first, even before the letter, and making sure the card summarizes the key appeal from the letter, including the desired action and donor benefits (38), to help recipients ‘‘cut through the clutter’’ (Dobkin, ‘‘Hot Tips’’) and perhaps by itself spur a donation (Hemmings 38). His advice for response-device content is similar to that offered by Dobkin (‘‘Hot Tips’’) for direct-mail copy writing in general, as well as to Douglas’ suggestions for magazine-subscription