‘I’ versus ‘You’
Which is the more effective word in a marketing/fundraising communication — ‘I’ or ‘You’?
Our favorite curmudgeon Denny Hatch gives his answer in this rant about a letter he just received as a longstanding and — until then — satisfied customer of Network Solutions.
Whenever Denny decides to pick apart a letter, ad or other marketing communication, I always read with great anticipation. This critique didn’t disappoint me.
Criticizing the author’s (David Brown, the CEO) anthropomorphic treatment of his company in the letter — Network Solutions is excited to offer this expanded portfolio, and Web.com is excited to serve you — Denny writes:
Network Solutions is excited! Web.com is excited!
David Brown’s foreplay is causing two buildings full of people to tremble with orgiastic anticipation.
So I guess you get the drift. Denny didn’t like the letter!
Along the way, he offers a number of great insights about what makes for effective copywriting. Here he is again, talking about what makes a letter personal (as a long-term customer of Network Solutions … Denny thinks they should at least pretend to be writing directly to him) …
David Brown started off with “I have great news for you!”
Whereupon the writer is gone. Never again does he use “I.”
Instead, he crawls under a rock and hides behind “we” (used 9 times) and “our” (used 3 times). He violates freelancer Richard Armstrong’s dictum:
The most important word in direct copy (aside from “free” of course) is not “you”—as many of the textbooks would have it—but “I.” What makes a letter seem “personal” is not seeing your own name printed dozens of times across the page, or even being battered to death with a never ending attack of “yous.” It is, rather, the sense that one gets of being in the presence of the writer… that a real person sat down and wrote you a real letter. —Richard Armstrong
[Parenthetically, Richard Armstrong is one of my and Roger’s most respected direct mail copywriters.]
So the winner is ‘I’.
There’s more food for thought in Denny’s rant — e.g., regarding optimum maximum characters in a line (75), and about the importance of flattery — delivered with zest.
You’re a smart cookie … I know you’ll read it.
Tom
3 responses to “‘I’ versus ‘You’”
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
Kudos to The Agitator for pointing readers to Denny Hatch and Richard Armstrong: every nonprofit should read Denny’s “Method Marketing” — esp. the part on customer (aka donor) delight. And Richard Armstrong? Well, if you haven’t seen “Why I Owe My Career to a Sea Turtle,” on SOFII, read and heed: http://www.sofii.org/node/591. (And since we’re naming names let’s add Ken Burnett to the list for creating the galaxy’s greatest free fundraising swipe site, SOFII: he’s got Richard’s Sea Turtle letter there, every gorgeous word.) Also free: Richard Armstrong’s e-book called “My First 40 Years in Junk Mail.” http://www.freesamplebook.com/ Thanks for sharing these guys with the world, Tom. Happy November!
I like it!
Interesting that they’re trying to sell a “customized” experience and can’t even be bothered to personalize the salutation.