Changing your messaging for different audiences may sound a good theory, but has anyone proved it's worth the effort?

We grabbed the opportunity to put the theory to the test with the RSPCA. The subject of the appeal was the need to get the Animal Welfare Bill onto the statute books, with an up-front campaigning ask, and the file was split by method of giving – cash donors versus regular givers. Chris and Nick worked on the cash version; Bee and I prepared the mailing for regular givers.

We took as broad assumptions (arrived at through analysis of the database) the likelihood that regular givers are more likely to be young, single, upwardly mobile and employed. And that cash givers are, relatively, more likely to be retired, socially stable and unadventurous.

For the cash givers, we used nostalgic imagery, serifed type, and leaned hard on concepts like 'historic', justice', 'punishment' – and making 'this country a safer place for everyone'. (Research, plus white mail, tells us that's what these donors care about.) The donation form deliberately asked for a small donation, as well as a signature on a campaign card to 'make our country a kinder place'.

The regular givers pack was red in tooth and envelope. The campaigning edge was much harder, calling for 'One last push.' The vigorously worded letter used active, physical language and a contemporary typeface. Anticipating that these donors would be receptive to active involvement, we gave them a duplicate, donor-get-donor, form to pass on to friends.

We were delighted when the results came in: this approach raised more than half as much again as was targeted. And it found 1,000 more names for the supporter file. Furthermore, the mailing generated many more signatures to push this somewhat preoccupied government into action for animals.

The real trick, of course, lies in knowing not only how your supporters like being talked to, but also what age they happen to be…

Barry Evans