A Reminder About Testing
My favorite source of info on direct marketing testing is MarketingSherpa.
Yesterday they reported a test they had conducted with their own online newsletters that underscores what it means to get down into the weeds and test everything!
They were aiming to improve click through rates from brief items in their various e-newsletters through to the full articles on their website. They hypothesized that the actual words inside their “click” buttons might make a difference. So they tested these variations:
“Click to continue”
“Continue to article”
“Read more”
One of these outperformed the others significantly … enough for MarketingSherpa to immediately adopt the phrase throughout its e-pubs. The winner? You'll have to skip to the P.S. below!
Two points here for nonprofit fundraisers and communicators.
First, test everything! This lesson has been absorbed by most good direct mail pros. I'm far less certain that online marketers are as diligent, even though testing in the online medium is easier, faster and cheaper to execute.
Second, build your own “testing bible” … a formal, systematic institutional memory of all the testing you (hopefully) have completed, with lessons learned. And, if/when you're considering a direct marketing fundraising consultant, whether for direct mail or online marketing, make sure you get a good look at their bible as well. The more robust it is, the better. If they don't have one, try someone else! Life is too short to reinvent the wheel.
Tom
P.S. The winner was “Click to continue.” Worst was “Read more.” MarketingSherpa opines that online readers don't actually read, they scan. And they even resist the notion that they're reading. So don't throw the word “Read” at them … it's too demanding. Sounds plausible.
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