By Joey Mechelle Farque, Head of Content, VeraData
Your case for support should be a story you tell more than once.
It’s the logic, truth, and emotion that must hold up in the first 10 seconds of an appeal, the first scroll of a landing page, and the first line of a receipt.
When response starts underperforming, it’s so easy for fundraisers to blame the channel, the list, or donor fatigue. And sometimes that blame is 100% true. In our experience, the more common problem is simpler: the donor can’t quickly answer three questions:
- What is happening?
- What will my gift do, specifically?
- Why should I trust you to deliver it?
A case for support audit is a way to identify gaps in your messaging before you spend money amplifying them. Below are seven high-frequency failure points we see in direct response and omnichannel fundraising, along with the fixes that protect conversion and trust.
#1 The opening makes a bold claim, but doesn’t earn bold belief
What it looks like: “We’re on the front lines.” “The need is urgent.” “Lives are at stake.” Strong words, little proof.
Why donors drop: Donors don’t enjoy rejecting urgency. What they reject is blatantly unsupported urgency. If your opening is pure assertion, the reader has no reason to stay with you.
Fix it: Add one concrete “anchor” immediately after the claim.
- A specific outcome (“meals delivered today,” not “you can help stop food insecurity”)
- A credible constraint (“we are short X kits for X families”)
- A verifiable detail (“our team is operating in X counties”).
Quick test: Test an “earned opening” against a “big opening.” Same offer, same ask string, different first 50 words.
#2 The beneficiary is blurry, and the donor can’t picture the moment of impact
What it looks like: Paragraphs and ad nauseam copy about your mission, little about the person, place, or near-term consequence.
Why donors drop: Vague beneficiaries create emotional distance. Distance absolutely kills response.
Fix it: Write one sentence that creates a scene the donor can picture:
- Who
- Where
- What changes in the next 24–72 hours if the donor acts right now
You don’t always need a full story. But you always need a real moment.
Quick test: Swap in a “scene sentence” above the fold (or above the first scroll on mobile). Watch time-on-page and click-to-donate change, even if overall traffic stays flat.
#3 The “problem” is explained, but the “job to be done” is missing
What it looks like: A well-written explanation of need, with no clear assignment for the donor.
Why donors drop: The need is not an action plan. Donors, especially in rapid response situations, want to feel useful, not informed.
Fix it: Define the donor’s job in plain language.
- “Put X back on the shelf for X low-income seniors.”
- “Keep the clinic open this weekend.”
- “Cover X emergency rides.”
Then connect that job to a single, simple mechanism: “Your gift does X.”
Quick test: Add a “Your job” subhead early and see if you can reduce copy length without hurting conversion.
#4 The offer is buried, diluted, or too abstract to act on
What it looks like: The appeal talks around the ask. Sometimes nonprofit marketers pull on the heartstrings with a few too many adjectives, and it starts to feel phony. The donor has to work to find what you want them to do.
Why donors drop: In direct response, clarity is a conversion strength. If the offer is fuzzy, people hesitate. Always.
Fix it: Make the offer unmistakable.
- Promise: what the donor enables
- Proof: why it’s credible
- Specificity: what it funds or unlocks now
This is the core of your case. If it shows up late, you’ve already lost skimmers.
Quick test: Move the offer up by 30% in the letter or page. Keep everything else stable. Measure.
#5 The proof is generic, performative, or reads like a report
What it looks like: Stats with no context, awards without meaning, big claims with no “how.”
Why donors drop: Proof should reduce a donor’s perceived risk. Generic proof increases suspicion, especially in high-noise moments.
Fix it: Use a proof hierarchy.
- One specific result tied to the offer
- One credibility marker (partner, third-party validation, track record)
- One constraint or operational detail that signals realism
If you have donor-facing outcomes, lead with those, but don’t fake it. Say what you can verify and what happens next. Again, NEVER make things up because donors are smart and see right through it.
Quick test: Replace a paragraph of metrics with one outcome and one operational detail. See if conversion holds while copy gets shorter.
#6 The donor is treated like an ATM, not a hero
What it looks like: “We need your help.” “We’re asking you to…” A lot of “we,” not enough “you.”
Why donors drop: Donors give when they can see themselves in the solution.
Fix it: Shift the language from organizational need to donor-enabled action.
- “You can make sure…”
- “You can keep…”
- “You can protect…”
This will clearly assign the donor a meaningful role.
Quick test: Run a “donor agency” rewrite of just the lead and the first ask. Measure lift before rewriting the whole package.
This recent Philanthropy.org piece by Texas Tech University professor and former planned giving director, Russell James III, shows how “people like me make gifts like this” examples can strengthen credibility (and how the wrong examples can backfire).
#7 The story breaks between channels, and the donor loses the thread
What it looks like: Mail says one thing, email says another, landing page introduces a third angle, and the donation form feels generic.
Why donors drop: Inconsistency creates doubt. Doubt creates abandonment. This is one of the most expensive mistakes because you’re paying for the click and then losing the gift.
Fix it: Build a simple message map.
- One primary promise (what the donor makes possible)
- One proof anchor (why it’s credible)
- One next step (what to do now)
Then make sure the first screen of every channel delivers those three elements in the same order.
Quick test: Audit alignment across: outer envelope/subject line, first screen of landing page, donation form header, confirmation/receipt. Fixing just those “handoff points” often outperforms rewriting everything.
How To Run the Audit in 30 Minutes
Pull your most recent appeal (mail package or digital campaign) and answer these questions with brutal honesty:
- In the first 10 seconds, does the donor know what’s happening and why it matters now?
- Can you point to a single sentence that explains, in concrete terms, what the gift does?
- Does your proof reduce risk, or does it read like marketing?
- Is the donor’s role clear, specific, and emotionally true?
- Does the message stay consistent from first touch to donation completion?
If you can’t answer quickly, your donor can’t either.
