I prefer dissected because it shows what the book will do as far as fundraising.

Because it makes more sense to me.

I don't know what "Hands Dirty Fundraising" means, so I picked the one that I understood.

OPTION A SOUNDS MORE APPEALING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

I prefer Option A. It's clear and easy to understand and get the point across. Option B confuses me. It is "Hands Dirty" or "Dirty Fundraising?"

Option A is better because there is no confusion about the title: the book is about a fundraising campaign. With option B, the title is not only strange, but it could have negative connotations: someone getting their hands dirty usually means they committed a crime. I suspect you meant that the fundraising was done by having people put in manual labor, but that's why the title is confusing at the same time.

The other is a bit confusing and sounds like it might involve dishonest fundraising

Flows better, simple and to the point

This is a much better choice. The other option sounds incorrect and not realistic

I don't care for hands dirty

I don't really find either that appealing, but Option B is less appealing, the tagline "Hands Dirty Fundraising" just seems a bit click-baity

this is more appealing to me

This one is a tough choice, they both feel pretty intriguing to me. A wins out in the end since the terminology used in the beginning sounds just a bit more credible at a glance.

I really don't prefer either, both worded poorly

Option A implies a more detailed look into the campaign.

Option B sounds too suspicious.

Hands Dirty Fundraising sounds illegla.

B is kind of abstract

I like the statement in Option A about dissecting the campaign.

I feel this is a much more presentable and clear title.

Option A seems informative, option B sounds like it's a story about an illegal fundraiser("hands dirty") to combat other illegal things.

The other one seems shady.

"Hands Dirty" just seems unnecessary, while option A sounds more information

seems like a more explicit option

It is shorter and makes more sense.

reading dirty is discouraging

It sounds more intriguing.

sounds a little better

The choices were very similar. I did not like the word "dissected" in Option A.

The way this information is presented seems more interesting to me overall.

Option B's "Hands Dirty Fundraising" sounds more fun and appealing than Option A's "Fundraising Campaign Dissected." Option B sounds welcoming, warmer and friendlier while Option A comes off more scientific, cold, and off-putting.

The name makes it seem a little more interesting to read.

I like the getting your hands dirty reference, it shows that they are not afraid of hard work

I like the cheeky tone

The other one just sounds boring. Hands Dirty makes it sound like you are digging in and letting it all out.

The title is a lot more enticing, and entails that the one reading this book will get their "hands dirty", or get some useful insight by reading this book. A sounds too atypical compared, a dissection seems more like an overview rather than something with application.

Better book title.

option a seems more for one thing

sounds more interesting

Hands dirtier is a catchy phrase!

book is good

Resonates better with me than A

Hands Dirty Fundraising sounds like an interesting nitty-gritty read, where as A Fundraising Campaign Dissected sounds like a dry, dull University lecture.

This sounds like it's more down-to-earth and real information. Not just another standard article.

I choose option B because it made the process feel fun. It would draw my attention because it makes me feel like I got involved.

Option B catches your attention with the first three words.

easier to remember

more creative and engaging

The different wording in B makes it more interesting.

Feel like it is speaking to me more.