Hey!
There’s testing … and there’s TESTING!
I might have promised to move past marketing/fundraising lessons from the recent US election campaigns, but I just can’t resist passing this article along — The Science Behind Those Obama Campaign E-Mails — from Bloomberg Businessweek.
The Obama digital team, which included 20 writers alone (!), tested every aspect of each proposed email appeal before committing to mass distribution … often as many as 18 variations before picking a winner.
The result was $690 million raised online.
So when Roger and I urge you to test everything — mail components, offers, landing pages, emails, telemarketing scripts — we really mean it!
Even now, You are the subject of an Agitator test. The single word “Hey” was Obama’s best subject line. Roger and I wanted to see how that would work for us. We’ll be reporting back.
Tom
8 responses to “Hey!”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Dear Tom and Roger, although I do have to admit that I often move your daily emails to my ‘still-to-read-folder’, this one I opened ánd read immediately. And look: I even left a comment!
Thanks for this great insight!
Best, Gerbren
Hi there,
I like the ‘Hey!’, it did grab my attention and sparked my curiosity (even whilst on a busy work assignment in Mongolia 😉 so there you go!
With best wishes,
Sabine
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I have always thought that the reason most organizations don’t believe in testing is because of the added cost. However, I am starting to wonder if a large part of the “problem” with testing is that it requires additional planning and lead time (it can be hard enough to meet regular deadlines when a project has been held up in committee…).
As always, Agitator, I applaud you for continuing to fight the good fight!
What strikes me about this is the vast amount of resources that the Obama campaign was able to invest up front in this effort. Twenty writers. Oh, please That’s half the number of people we have on our entire staff. There’s something that has been missing in all of the comments on the Obama email phenomena — the hundreds of millions (perhaps several billion) of dollars in free media that POTUS gets every single day. I think that the “more than 20 writers” deetail brings to mind the old comment about the infinite number of monkeys and the infinite number of typewriters. Given enough time, they probably would write the complete works of Shakespeare.
I opened this email because I heard some analysis of the Obama campaign emails and expected your email to cover the same topic. I didn’t open the email because I was intrigued by “Hey!” I hope you’ll somehow account for readers like me. I’m actually a bit disappointed that the email had so little substance.
You got me. I opened this email right away – didn’t leave it to read when and if I had some time.
Hey Tom and Roger! I opened this post because I always open the Agitator, but also because I had read the story on what the most successful subject line of Obama’s campaign was. So …. Imitation still breeds success. Hats off to you both for all the great info you put in our hands. kate
Makes you wonder how many emails we’ll all start seeing with that subject line. 🙂