Is Your Writing Edited?
Nancy Gibbs, former editor in chief of Time magazine, often quipped, “every word has to earn its place in a sentence, every sentence has to earn its place in a paragraph, and every idea has to earn its place in a text.”
And it turns out we’re not very good at deleting when we edit. One study asked participants to edit their own summary of a short article they were provided. Eighty-three percent added words.
If you think your reader – colleague, donor, client – is busy then you owe it to yourself and them to make it shorter. Another study (from authors with a very creative book cover shown below) sent two survey invitation emails; one was 127 words, the other 49. The latter got a 78% higher response rate.
Why is that? The people who got the longer email incorrectly assumed the survey would be longer.
A lot of lengthy writing doesn’t get rea
d at all because we rightly assume it will take more time while discounting the possible positives – e.g., we learn more, we feel more connected. And even if the lengthier tomes get started, people often bail.
This isn’t a recommendation to write shorter, just better.
And follow Nancy’s advice, make every word, sentence and paragraph earn it. And know that your bias is probably longer and to fight against that.
Short, medium or long copy is never a (good) goal. Getting and keeping the reader’s attention is what matters.
Kevin
2 responses to “Is Your Writing Edited?”
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
Nice, nice, nice: “Keeping the reader’s attention is what matters.”
How many adjectives can I barnacle on your incisive article, Kevin? “Concise.” (Though 2 syllables. Maybe instead…) “Short.” Guess that doesn’t quite capture much of anything either, unless you know some of the back-story of why shorter messaging penetrates MOST deeply, in mass communications (ref. Schwab, Schwartz, Joseph Sugarman; et al.)
Hi Tom, good to hear from you as always. And as always, you’ve got a handle on the power and nuance of words, love your short vs. concise example. The latter has positive valence while the former is highly dependent on context and otherwise begs the question of good or bad.