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
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
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.