‘Crafting’ versus ‘Producing’ … Writing Songs versus Jingles
According to comScore, US e-commerce sales (via desktop) were up 13% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2013. In that quarter, there were over $50 billion in retail e-commerce sales, and online sales accounted for over 10% of discretionary dollars spent, the highest share yet recorded.
OK, so people are buying more and more online. In parallel, people are donating more and more online. It’s a learned behavior.
But somehow, to this aging American, it just doesn’t feel the same to click on PayPal or go online to make a funds transfer as it used to feel to write a check.
Yeah, I appreciate the convenience, the speed, the built-in record-keeping.
But somehow it just doesn’t feel as rewarding or committal or bonding.
And I think that lack of emotional ‘ooze’ begins with clicking (even worse, thumbing) open an email appeal versus the tactile experience of opening up a real live letter (even when it’s ‘junk mail’ I’ve elected to open).
In turn that makes me question, how much ‘feeling’ went into crafting that three or four paragraph email appeal versus what went into crafting a four page direct mail appeal.
Indeed, does anyone actually ‘craft’ an email appeal? Or is that some kind of oxymoron?
In my mind, ‘crafting’ something has to do with making a variety of elements work together, getting just the right words in just the right place, creating just the right emotional gestalt.
In contrast, ‘producing’ an email appeal is what … composing the most arresting subject line?!
Online fundraising is writing the jingle versus the song!
I don’t think I’ve ever read a ‘moving’ email appeal … yes, some with a sense of anger and urgency, but not really ‘moving’. I have, however, seen numerous online video appeals that were moving way beyond mere words. So I do concede that the potential is clearly there for online fundraising to approach the realm of craftsmanship.
What say you? Am I just having a grumpy day? Is there any ‘craftsmanship’ (or ‘craftswomanship’) in online fundraising, or is it just a bunch of jingle writing?
Tom
9 responses to “‘Crafting’ versus ‘Producing’ … Writing Songs versus Jingles”
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
Well, if it’s your grumpy day, Tom, I’m proud to be a grump with you.
Sure. Yes. Swell. Technology and social media. BUT…that stuff isn’t the answer to all of life’s opportunities and challenges.
For example, Roger Dooley, http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com, posted research titled “Paper Beats Digital for Emotion.” (October 4, 2010) Thanks, by the way. As I recall, I learned about neurosciencemarketing.com by reading some reference made in The Agitator!
I think there could be craft – more than a jingle in online fundraising. But too often now, there isn’t. And I suspect that has to do with the attitude towards online. Fast. Easy. Free. We’re all casual pals. We all love the immediacy of digital. I even had young fundraiser say to me when I was explaining something: “Just give me the twitter version.” How pathetic is that?
So somehow, digital means the 140 character version of life. The quick and thoughtless approach to life. On some level, I’ll bet thinking of “craft” in online too automatically verges into, “Ah, yes. Twitter-esque.”
Yay to the grumps. We are winning by the way. We’re still raising more money through craft.
You’ve never read a moving email appeal? Really?!?
Some historical perspective:
“A history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.single.html
Interesting … I actually get upset with my boss (only on occasion, sir!) because I don’t think he understands what goes into crafting an email campaign. To be sure, when we craft postal mail, we involve a graphic designer, copywriter, the print house … the works. But an email campaign seems to get the ” just send it” attitude, when in fact, I spend a great deal of effort trying to make it more than just that. By the same token, I tend to agree that there’s nothing like feeling a nice envelope in your hand – something you can tell was carefully designed & carefully printed – turning pages, and making an effort to respond with the same amount of effort that went into ensuring that it landed at your doorstep.
I’m definitely more likely to pay attention to a mail appeal – IF it’s good. So many are not. And I agree that so many email appeals also fall far short of moving and emotional. More like “Hi. Here’s a fact or two. Send us money. K? Bye”
Maybe we’ve just had more time to understand what it takes to make mail moving?
I have to absolutely disagree with you on this one. Maybe it’s a generational difference. I’m 25, a fundraiser, a writer and a donor. For me, getting appeals in the mail is annoying, even when they’re from my favorite charities. It’s just more paper I have to recycle and an extra step to making my (always online) donation. Unless it’s a really special piece that needs to be seen in printed form, just send it to me by email!
Although I know there is research behind the effectiveness of the four-page appeal, I have never been excited by one. I think it takes just as much skill and craft, if not more, to write succinctly.
Of course, I know better than to base my fundraising practice on my own personal donor preferences. I am not advocating the end of direct mail or anything. I admit there are many bad email appeals out there that are sent too often. But I think it’s wrong to assume a written piece is automatically of lesser quality and weight just because it’s read on a screen rather than on a piece of paper.
I’ll dig through my e-appeal file and send The Agitator some of my favorites!
I’ve been mulling this over and I’m afraid I must agree with Heather and Harry. I’ve seen plenty of moving email appeals. Not only have they inspired me to give, but I’ve also seen others inspired to give. Not all of them, of course. Each organization must figure out for themselves what the “Goldilocks” just right amount is. But they work. And they work in sequence. Heck, there’s no one right channel for all people anymore. Far from it.
As fundraising professionals it’s up to us to meet folks where they are. And there are plenty of folks online. A lot. And online donors also share more than offline donors… thus attracting more potential donors. In “Nine reasons why social and mobile are the future of fundraising” on the JustGiving blog, Jonathan Waddingham shares some interesting data and observations.
How about this: “One in five donation shares results in another donation and one in ten shares results in another share.” And would you believe mobile users share twice as much as desktop users? Mail appeal donors just don’t do this. Brave new world.
Sorry to chime in so late. Yes, direct mail is still far more effective than email. especially with older donors. But we need to keep working at writing moving and effective email. It’s still the most effective digital channel, especially if it drives people to an emotive video. But here’s the scoop, and many of you won’t be surprised…offline is the main driver of online transactions.
I’m currently taking the Google Squared Digital Marketing Course and they aren’t pulling any punches about the drivers of online commerce. It looks something like this when customers(all ages) are surveyed about online purchases:
Direct Mail from Retailer / Brand – 22% / 31%
TV product mention / TV ad – 21% / 37%
Magazine ads / articles – 24% / 28%
Newspaper ads / articles – 29% / 28%
Online ad / email from brand – 22% / 23%
There is a strong blurring between online and offline and a definite cumulative effect. What few stats we’ve talked about regarding age cohorts show a much higher level of trust among 50+ for print and TV as opposed to online.
Mobile is actually set to be a much stronger driver than online.
Just one proviso to the Just Giving data. It mostly relates to Peer to Peer giving. This is a channel of giving strongly driven by digital & social media (Yay!) But the stats for Peer to Peer should not be extrapolated to all online or social media. The income generated by digital channels is still small, in both charity and in retail.
Great article!
I would suggest there is a degree of accuracy to your stance. I think the underlying reasons are cost and experience.
It is far less expensive to send 10,000 emails than it is 10,000 letters.
Direct mail has a very long history, it has had years and years to develop into the effective tool it is.
It should not be one or the other–on-line or off-line–but an effective use of both. Finding that balance for each type of donor is the challenge.