Just before Christmas I received two follow-up mailings. Both from homelessness charities. Both mailsort light. And instructive to compare.

The one from Shelter had a handwritten message on the envelope which took my eye. ‘Important reminder – please treat as urgent.’ All appeals are urgent: but this one asked to be treated as urgent.

The short(ish) letter inside, after the obligatory prompt in the headline, for a gift of £30, spent two paragraphs reminding me of the case history in the foregoing mailing, before politely making the key point (though in bold type) ‘I hope that if you haven’t already...’.

Over the remaining four paragraphs the Chief Executive reminds me of the happy outcome of this case, and thanks me cordially for my ongoing support, with the by now traditional caveat in the PS. ‘Should my letter have crossed in the post...'

The one from Crisis had been sent by ECONOMY post. Nice touch. The one-piece letter with tear-off donation form comprises just six sentences, a headline and subhead, and three bullet points. It goes for the throat.

‘Christmas Appeal Reminder – PLEASE HELP NOW!’ screams the headline. And the first sentence puts the reader right on the back foot:

‘We sent you our Christmas appeal in November and as yet we have not had a response from you.’ And the reason for this abrupt approach? ‘We haven’t reached our targets for this appeal yet.’

Wow! If the Shelter pack is as gracious as a maiden aunt, then the Crisis pack goes in 'all guns blazing'.

I do not seek to adjudicate here. There is no right or wrong. But what would be wonderful to know – and what we shall probably never know because these charities compete for funds – is which worked best? Did polite outmanoeuvre abrupt, or did the direct assault storm the citadel? Or did both work equally well with different kinds of audience?

If somebody out there knows, and is willing to share the secret, I promise only to share it with the deserving.

Barry Evans