Putting Your Emails In Context
It’s tempting to think fanatize that our donors and donor prospects are hovering over their favorite digital device, eagerly awaiting each and every one of our fundraising messages … and of course ignoring all that other ‘clutter’ sent by others.
Of course such vigilance is a fantasy. I’m sure no Agitator readers are mistaken about that.
But we are susceptible to getting a bit casual, maybe even lazy, as we crank up our digital engines and fire away without really being mindful of the contexts in which these messages are received.
And yet context is so important in terms of how these most discardable and probably least weighty (compared to any other medium of contact, from face-to-face to phone call to letter) of messages are processed.
Here’s some data from a recent Adobe survey that serves as a reminder of just how un-notable our emails might be:
- The mean percent of personal emails opened is 60% — so 40% ignored/deleted off the bat;
- 59% of personal emails are opened on a smartphone (which almost always suggests other simultaneous distractions are at play);
- 90% of recipients open their personal emails while at work — 39% every hour or even more frequently (again, not exactly a leisurely reflective context).
And what are the most common situations in which your emails are likely to be read?
Tell me, do any of those circumstances strike you as ideal for your donor to be weighing your latest ‘life or death’ appeal?!
Given these circumstances, it pays to devote some serious attention to the mechanics and creative aspects of your emails — from download speed and readability via mobile devices to use of images (in terms of both technical rendering and expected impact); from proven subject line approaches (e.g., personalization) to respecting known donor preferences as to frequency and content.
The last thing you should do is regard your email messaging as cheap, easy and automatic … that’s the sure path to having your emails disregarded.
Tom
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