5 Email Mistakes
‘Tis the season for a gazillion email fundraising appeals. Here are five Email 101 pointers from direct response copywriter Ivan Levison, making some direct mail analogies:
Mistake #1: Using a weak subject line.
Mistake #2: Burying your Web address.
Mistake #3: Failing to identify the reader’s pain quickly.
Mistake #4: Keeping the email too short.
Mistake #5: Writing in a boring, flat style.
Examples and explanations here.
And here are five more tips (Five reasons your email was deleted) from Frank Barry at Blackbaud. They both make Subject line their #1 focus; but they disagree on the length issue … the difference between a guy originally rooted in direct mail versus the online generation, I suspect.
Tom
3 responses to “5 Email Mistakes”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
This was a terrific, timely blog post. Of course, the list of mistakes could have been considerably longer. For example, another common mistake, that I cite in my new book “Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing,” is that some organizations email far too often. Even when folks opt-in for emails, they don’t want a steady stream of them. Sending too many emails will cause recipients to simply ignore them. It’s better to send fewer, high-impact emails than many mediocre ones.
What the devil does this mean: ‘Mistake #3: Failing to identify the reader’s pain quickly.’????
Thanks for the mention here. When it comes to length (short or long) … I believe it’s shifted over the years. The introduction of Tweets and Status updates has surely affected the way people read material online.