What’s Wrong With This Online Appeal?
Nothing is wrong, as best I can tell.
- Personalized to “Tom”
- The appeal has urgency … delivered by the message itself and the “progress bar” showing amount raised to date against the campaign deadline.
- It’s clear what efforts my donation will support (as is the experience behind it).
- There are seven different “Click” opportunities to make a donation.
- And there’s a $2:$1 match (from an identified donor, adding credibility) that both motivates a gift (triple your impact) and underscores the need to act now to take advantage.
- Charity Navigator “blessing.”
- Robust “share” options.
- Finally, the landing page is tailored to this specific appeal (i.e., not generic).
If anyone has a suggestion as to how this appeal could be better executed, I’d love to hear it.
Until then, well done EDF!
Tom
21 responses to “What’s Wrong With This Online Appeal?”
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
I would have put the ask at the beginning – especially the two to one matching. While in general I agree with stating the problem, in this case the Gulf oil spill has had such huge publicity that it’s less necessary to take time explaining the problem first up., The lead could have been a powerful call to action, making it clear that giving now to this organisation the most effective thing anyone could do right now.
Something like:
“Right now, every $1 given to help support disaster response to the devastation caused by the Gulf oil spill will be turned into $3 through a matching gift from ….
But you have to give now …
It’s a shame to let such an important opportunity pass without making the most of it.
They exceeded their match. They need to automate a change in the messaging if they are going to automate the progress bar. Thanks!
I might also add a bit of hope to the dire message at the top. In addition to describing the “unimaginable” disaster, mention that EDF has been doing x, y, z (ideally through a personal story of one of its workers?) and that YOUR support will help EDF continue this work.
The difficulty is incorporating all of this important information and not hiding the ask … and not overwhelming the recipient with too much info. That’s why a personal story could be ideal here.
But I agree that this is a very well-designed email solicitation.
Kevin
“Dear Friend” is a common spam term, and can potentially lead to emails being caught into spam traps. I’d suggest opening with something like, “Dear Loyal Supporter.”
This is a pretty standard appeal and will probably do fine, so if emulating the bland nonprofit writing you find everywhere was the goal there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.
If it has higher aspirations, it is missing a very key ingredient – emotion!
It is clear that someone has gone through a very thorough checklist to make sure all of the important technical components (personalization, call to action, urgency device, etc.) were present but in the implementation they got lazy about infusing the piece with EMOTIONAL appeal. There is nothing in this piece to tug at the heartstrings, to raise indignation to a crescendo (considering the issue, how hard would that be?) or to excite the reader enough about the matching gift opportunity to give NOW.
Some suggestions for improvement:
– don’t just say “disaster is unimaginable”, paint a word picture! (Hiroshima bomb devastated 100,000 people for 50 years but BP oil spill will devastate the region consisting of 750,000 people for at leat the next 100 years!! My numbers are made up, but you get the picture. Gives it more scale than “unimaginable” no?)
– instead of the picture of the EDF President holding oil puddle in his hand show picture of families crying, gulls covered in sludge, miles of empty beach laced with oil, etc.
– I like the “progress bar” urgency device but let’s face it, it’s a just a gimmick if you don’t add some true urgency to it – every extra dollar means we get to save another dolphin, another mile of beach, etc. and every day we can earlier means we can prevent more families down the coast from suffering.
This BP spill is a serious problem, doesn’t it deserve a serious appeal?
My two cents but you are welcome to them.
Two questions, Tom:
First, I don’t see where it is “personalized to Tom.” Can you point that out?
Second, it seems like the perfect opportunity to effectively regionalize. Do they have another version for folks in the states? Or they they done anything more granular?
Thanks in advance!
Sorry to be a downer- but I’d agree with Pam- this appeal is without much emotion. I never made it past the 2nd line. Given that the oil spill engenders outrage almost uiversally, this appeal is a little bland.
Re the personalization … my actual email began “Dear tom”. When I grabbed the screenshot, I used the web version, not realizing it began “Dear Friend.”
Also, a vigilant reader noted that I’ve had a working relationship with EDF. Indeed that’s true. The appeal is well-executed despite that!
The progress bar says 113%. Does that mean the match was over by the time Tom got the appeal? Maybe, maybe not. But there is no way for the donor to know if the goal was a limit set by donors, or a benchmark set by the organization. It’s a cool widget until it discourages donations.
Re personalization, I thought that might have been the case. Beyond the salutation, any other personalization — like the regionalization I queried about above? Thanks.
i think it is too doom and gloom in the beginning. saying something is “unimaginable” makes me think my donation won’t help one bit. AND it says the oil spill threatens the organizations concerns. What about mine? I think saying how this connects to me personally and how my personal concerns connect to the organization would be most effective.
Donor-centric copy is what’s missing. This is true throughout the appeal, and especially within the verbiage “Four Decades in the Gulf.”
With regard to emotion that so many have commented on, yes it is a bit factual. But I think the doom and gloom over-hyped emotional approach has been exhausted and over done on this subject. That being said, more compassion and emotion could be – and ought to be – woven in along with donor-centric copy.
Tom, I’m curious: what was the subject line?
There are a lot of things wrong with this.
1. I agree with Pam…no emotion. My god, what are we robots.
2. The match is not explained well. It’s written to expect donors to know what a $2 to $1match is. Let donors know exactly what giving a $1 will do, then what $10, $100 or even $1,000 will do.
3. Looks like they reached their goal. Why are they sending this out? Doesn’t make sense. What possible motivation would I have to send a gift when they are already over their goal.
One thing that I wish EDF fixed is that they haven’t checked out what their email looks like in OUTLOOK! It’s a mess. The text doesn’t wrap around the sidebar image.
The word “you” appears exactly once in this letter, almost at the end. I agree with Jessica – tell me how I fit in to this picture.
Subject line was: Last Chance to Triple Your Support. Unfortunately I deleted earlier appeals in the series.
They note that they have already exceeded their goal (113%). That might not make sense to me as a donor. It also sounds like a very small $ goal to mobilize a long term effort for a huge environmental disaster.
Although the urgency is clear on an emotional level, showing that you’ve already reached 113% of your goal – ie. exceeded that which you wanted in the first place, tells me that you don’t really need my money. There is no explanation as to why they are continuing with the fundraising effort and what they will do with the 13% extra they have and whatever else is gathered in their last day. Perhaps something along the lines of “Because of the generous support of those who have seen the impact of the oil in the gulf, we have expanded our environmental defense programme and will now be adding/doing X”
I think there’s a few problems with this email:
1. Language: not very strong, there’s nothing about all the animals and people that are affected – the message doesn’t really stir up any emotions in me when I read it.
2. Imagery: Again, looks like a photo of my dad when he’s on holiday – what about all the footage of animals and beaches covered in oil – think that’s a more powerful message.
3. Call to action: Again, they’re talking about an “Opportunity” which to me sound a bit like a 2 for 1 offer at the supermarket – not very powerful if you ask me.
I agree with Karen and would love to see her suggestion for a donor-centric and compelling opening.