Two Openings for a Food-Bank Appeal
A nonprofit is writing a fundraising email to two segments. Segment A is prior donors who gave within the last year; Segment B is lapsed donors who gave nothing for three years. Draft Opening 1 reads: "Last winter, 4,200 families in our county used our pantry-up 38% from the year before. You made 1,100 of those visits possible." Draft Opening 2 reads: "You haven't heard from us in a while. Here's what changed: 4,200 families now rely on our pantry, up 38%." The communications director wants to send Opening 1 to both segments because its statistics are stronger and it thanks the reader. A volunteer objects that Opening 1 will read as accusatory to lapsed donors who gave nothing last winter.
1. Evaluate the director's and volunteer's positions. Who is right, and on what grounds?
Read the worked answer
The volunteer is right about Segment B. Opening 1's second sentence-"You made 1,100 of those visits possible"-presupposes the reader donated last winter. For prior donors that's a flattering, accurate reminder of efficacy. For lapsed donors who gave nothing in three years, the same sentence is false as applied to them and can read as a pointed reminder of their absence. The statistics are equally strong in both openings; what differs is the implied relationship between writer and reader. Style and tone are audience-relative: the same sentence that builds rapport with one segment damages it with another. The director's reasoning treats "stronger statistics" as audience-independent, which it isn't.
2. Rewrite the second sentence of Opening 1 so it works for prior donors without accusing lapsed ones, and explain the move.
Read the worked answer
Sample: "Donors like you made 1,100 of those visits possible." The revision shifts from second-person singular presupposition ("you made") to a class of donors ("donors like you"), so it praises prior givers without asserting that this particular reader gave. It keeps the efficacy appeal-the reader is invited into the group that helped-while removing the false presupposition that would sting a lapsed donor. The move is presupposition management: change what the sentence takes for granted about the reader rather than changing the facts.