Compelling Images … Or Spam?
On the basis of testing they have done, M+R Strategic Services reports that inclusion of images within online e-mail appeals for action or funds does NOT necessarily translate to better response. They point out that anti-spam features built into most e-mail systems increasingly tend to block images, unless users have have elected to change default settings (and many aren't geeky enough to do this). And blocked images can make your e-mail message look anything BUT compelling, if not undecipherable. Their caution: Beware. While they haven't seen images hurt response, nor have they helped … so why take the chance?
Point well taken. But personally, I would like to see more testing of the proposition. Without question, powerful images (not necessarily just any stock photo) can prompt or amplify emotions and behavior that words alone cannot. Just how much of an impediment e-mail filters are to delivering that impact deserves more investigation.
Anybody have pertinent data they'd like to share?
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