As a fundraiser, I’m sure you’re familiar with the challenge of a strengths-based rather than need-based approach to storytelling for appeals. 

With the push to decolonise fundraising narratives and to centre program participants and service users, charity leaders want to de-emphasise need and focus on positives.  

As a solution to this, I have written and spoken extensively about using philanthropic psychology (Phil Psych) to help you overcome this issue without compromising fundraising income. But lately, whenever I talk about Phil Psych, someone inevitably jumps in to tell me what I’m really doing is strengths-based messaging. But this is not the case. They may look similar but they are not the same. To the untrained observer, I can understand the confusion. After all, the end result of both is a letter suffused with uplifting and positive tones. However, the strategies are vastly different. 

Strengths-based messaging at its core comes from the programs side of for-purpose organisations. It’s about working with the strengths rather than weaknesses of service users to help them out of poverty (or whatever outcome they’re trying to achieve). Phil Psych messaging is rooted in the desire to grow donor love, through increasing donor wellbeing and celebrating donor identity. So while a strengths-based approach is very effective for helping program participants, it doesn’t necessarily follow that a strengths-based approach to fundraising will be effective at bringing in income. 

BUT… 

Sometimes a strengths-based approach to appeal messaging appears to work. That’s usually by accident not intention. And it’s usually because the attempted strengths-based messaging approach has unintentionally overlapped with a philanthropic psychology principle… for example, leaning into messaging around community.  

On the program side, community can certainly be a powerful asset for a participant and a key driver of a strengths-based approach to working with a beneficiary. The concept of community can also be part of a strong messaging strategy for a direct mail piece but not because it’s strengths-based. It’s because community is a core component of Phil Psych — connection is a key driver of donor wellbeing. Also, community is also often an integral part of donor identity. And sometimes the donor shares an identity (and connection!) with your program participants.  

So you might frame your donor as a valued part of the participant’s extended community (as opposed to your donor being the hero as with traditional fundraising models). Another way you might highlight that sense of community is through demonstrating your program participants and donors are part of the same in group. For instance, both might be Christian. Or champions of women’s equality. Or lovers of nature.  

This is why strengths-based messaging only works sometimes in appeals. In contrast, Phil Psych messaging (if done properly) should ALWAYS work. 

So if you want to use strengths-based messaging then just ensure it’s underpinned by Phil Psych principles in your next campaign. 

Creagivity’s fundraising copywriters have been employing Phil Psych tactics for years. If need help to pair your standard strengths-based messaging for your next appeal with a proven Phil Pscyh approach, please get in touch.