No need to talk me into. At your service, Jeff. Give me a deadline.
+ PS: Whatever I write, feel free to edit. On my personal Mt. Rushmore are those editors who made my crap better.
"The D seems off for that context."
[He's talking about the ancient AIDA formula in advertising.]
Advertising IS different. You hope to drive response; that's ALL that matters. The cash register must RING. That's why you're spending money to make money.
In the nonprofit world these days, though, being accused as "transactional" raises eyebrows.
Being transactional was the entire point, when I worked commercial: you committed your money, then you got something in return. Give, get.
I think nonprofit marketers (i.e., fundraisers) have been bullied into shunning this basic trade-craft. Weak bosses, self-righteous program staffers, ignorant board chairs all play a role.
It's one of the oldest delusions in fundraising: entitlement. "We don't have to do shit. You just SHOULD give us your money ... because we ARE that worthy!"
------
No longer ... for at least 50 years?
The reasons WHY someone's heart gives to your charity mission are personal. Not to be trifled with.
{deleted: a rant about today's New Puritans}
And so ... what's the transaction ... what then do I GET, nonprofit donor ... in exchange? (Because neuroscience says "reciprocity" matters, in human interactions.)
Is your best response a glib, AI-derived, soulless thanking me for my online gift?
------
Back to Jeff: I didn't mean that AIDA was FULLY appropriate.
I meant only that a grounding in AIDA changes your thinking. Donor newsletters aren't entirely passive; they can also trigger action. And based on our Zoomer, the newsletter under consideration is apparently NOT triggering action. And until it DOES trigger action, keep experimenting.
love cakes and the season for lobster rolls now arrives...