Should You Drop Me From Your Email List?
I get fundraising emails regularly from nonprofits to whom I haven’t contributed in years … in one case, about 6+ years.
From their perspective, when — if ever — should they give up on me?
Since I give mostly to advocacy groups, perhaps I confuse them. I’ll respond to the occasional action alert, if I think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of some possible impact, even though I’m not contributing. I suppose that in itself confounds their system, given that by one measure at least they know: a) I’m still alive, and b) still somewhat interested.
But they should know clearly that I haven’t contributed.
From their perspective, is there any reason to give up sending me emails?
Here’s an article from the commercial space that discusses the pros and cons of emailing to ‘inactive’ subscribers. As they see it, the downside relates to your reputation as an emailer to the big email account hosting ISPs (like Yahoo, Hotmail and Google). These guys employ a variety of schemes to identify emailers who might be spamming, or at least using very ‘dirty’ lists. You don’t want to get on their dark side if you’re a major emailer.
The article includes some tips on practices that might help you more safely email to inactives without offending the gatekeepers.
But interestingly, they don’t discuss the issue from the recipient’s perspective. On the one hand, the risk of reputation damage might be quite high if an organization keeps sending me emails in which I’m showing no palpable interest. On the other hand, the nonprofit might ask, if I were really no longer interested, why wouldn’t I simply have Unsubscribed? And perhaps they would deduce that I was a ‘lurker’ … in fact, someone still interested after all, but just not responding in the email channel.
That’s why the article cited above does recommend looking at cross-channel behavior. In the commercial space, maybe I bought via the catalog or in a store. In the nonprofit case, maybe I responded via the mail. Of course, this cross-check requires customer/donor data integration, still a pipe dream for many organizations.
So, what would you do with me? When would you give up? Never?
Tom
7 responses to “Should You Drop Me From Your Email List?”
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
It is always suprising to notice that even big charities don’t seem to be able to manage the right data on their donors (or followers). How many emails or letters have I received thanking me for my financial support when I had only signed on their newsletter.
Working in the fundraising business, it does seem that these charities are taking huge risks regarding their reputation damage. This applies to solliciting donors year after year even when no response is given or simply not integrating the right information.
In our eyes-desease patients’ rights Italian charity we have now sorted this hot issue in this way. We move those people who contacted us leaving their personal details but not responded to our email fundraising request to a second list that we solicit during our campaigns for patients’ rights, asking them to send a message of protest to our health Institutions. Only if they are inactive even in this second group they are removed from our contact list.
As one of the most important scopes of our organization is to campaign and do advocacy work the second group (though it is not giving us money) is helping the organization to achieve its mission and objectives. So they are as much precious to us than those who are donating money. We need to keep them on board as well as donors.
Absolutely never! Unless you tell us to never darken your inbox again. I have many instances of charites have no contact back from people who have supported them for years but then receive a sizeable legacy just because they did keep in touch.
Maintaining separate lists of donors and “other advocates” may be one effective solution. Our organization (not yet launched) will do this. Those who are donors get certain privileges and have access to certain site areas and functions that others do not. However, we plan to track the activity of those who aren’t donors but who help spread the word about our organization and what we do via social media. Engagement with them is important as well.
As for lists and wondering whether to send a seemingly disengaged person additional emails, the article was interesting. I think I might consider sending an email after, say, nine months of “no opens” asking them if they want to continue receiving our emails. I know people can unsubscribe from all the other emails but it’s a scroll down and search for the TEEEEENY unsubscribe letters. Most people (including myself) generally just delete the email instead. If you’re really considering removing someone, maybe send an email with an easy unsubscribe link/button right in the center of the email.
Tom: I’ve subscribed to more than 100 nonprofit e-mail lists since Spring ’09, so I thought I might have some useful real-world info for you. I went back and scanned thru 8,000+ messages (many of which haven’t been opened). I could find only two organizations that asked in a separate message if I wanted to unsubscribe, or to confirm my info. Nonprofit #1 sent me a “Last Opportunity to Stay Informed” message, 8 months after I subscribed. Seven months after that I rec’d another email from them, “We’re sorry to see you go…”, which actually did end my subscription to that particular e-pub. However the organization continues to send other e-mails. Nonprofit #2 sent a message with a cryptic, “Lisa, is this correct?” subject line +15 months after subscribe date, with a nice message about sending only emails I wanted to read. I didn’t take action. The organization did remove me from the e-news list, but still sends marketing/end-of-year messages. All others still email me, 3 years out. On a personal note, several years ago my husband gave for the first time to a national brand-name charity and on the DM reply slip provided his email address. On average, he received 2 and more often 3-4 messages each week from various “divisions” of said organization. We had to unsubscribe to SIX different lists over a period of several months before the deluge subsided, and the occasional odd message still crops up. Thanks, Lisa
If you have their info then why not use it. Keeping them informed, while keepinmg your org in their mind, even w/o an ask is never a bad thing. If they do not wish to hear from you they opt out. All it takes is a click of a button. We send out quarterly E-blasts with simple updates on the latest happenings with very little back lash.
Our responses to email are behaviors that once in motion tend to stay in the same motion. I have to ration my attention to email, so it’s natural that once I’ve deleted one of your emails unread, I delete the next and the next until it’s a habit. At any one time, it’s easier and less risky to delete than to attempt unsubscribe. (rough cost/benefit: 60 deletes at one second each = one unsub at 60 seconds) Anyway, deep in my aspirational self, i want to be part of your cause – I just don’t want to give you any money or attention.
Maybe getting your ignored emails gives me a free maintenance dose of philanthropy I don’t deserve. Seems like it would make sense to peel off longtime non-responders for some pattern-breaking communication directed to their specific behavior and low-commitment relationship to your organization.