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."
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...
First: My name's not THOMAS. It's TOM.
I would never give a penny to any fundraising robot that doesn't get that right. And you can thank ActBlue for that persistent mistake. They go by my credit card name, not my common name. And never asked my preference.
I can't vote in the first district, anyway; so I'm really not your target audience. I have, however, given serious money to candidate Aaron, because I like a flaming progressive; I think he has fire power. Spoken with candidate Sabina, too; be happy with her. There are what? 33 other candidates as well? Oh, my.
And Walter, who are you again? I know what you're not (your paragraph 4).
How was the opening rate on your subject line? Not exactly a barn burner declaration.
And starting with a statistic in your email is how you lose the "3-second test." (I can explain; it comes from neuroscience.)
All this must sound like criticism. Honestly, may the best candidate win. David C. did RI proud, especially during the worst of the Trump years. Little Rhody can punch well above its weight ... with the right people in office (Whitehouse, Jack Reed).
And, yes, I know no one's listening. Hi, robot!
~ tom (not thomas)