Charity email newsletters 'a waste of time', says Obama strategist

Roger Wilsher, 20 February 2009, 10:43

Sorry Mr Gensemer. The world of communications is about hoprses for courses. We, at Abstract, a London-based content strategy company, have plenty of evidence, borth readership and ROI data, that email newsletters do get read and do get reaction. So do targeted personalised emails. Different content for different jobs. Obviously Blue State Media has a lot to learn.

[Report this post]

Ade Fashade, 20 February 2009, 12:21

The real success about the Obama campaign was Obama himself! He is a 'one-off' who galvanised much of the apathetic young people and young adults in America to believe that change is possible. A large proportion the apathy lay within much of the African American communities who, for once in a long time, felt a sense of engagement with someone familiar and a sense of pride in their country (Anothe 'first' for a long time) after years of their voice being unheard through various media. And they expressed their new found voice and power through the digital media. The efforts of Blue State Media, I am afraid, was built on this fact. However, their success should not be underestimated.

[Report this post]

Tony Wright, 20 February 2009, 15:16

I think the argument's not so much that e-newsletters are a total waste of time, but that a different approach could provide greater rewards.

[Report this post]

William Madsen, 21 February 2009, 19:29

I'm not sure I agree with this. Penelope Burke in "Donor Centered Fundraising" makes the point with a lot of research backing her up that organizatons should ditch most of the 6-8 page newletters to e-newsletters of "one line" that appear in the subject area of an email. In the content area, there's a link to a simple one-pager with, say, four pictures and very little content outside of some brief captions. Donors want to be acknowledged quickly and personally and kept abreast of relevant news showing how their money has been invested. You should never ask for money in these little missives and they should only been sent when you have real news. I've played around with this method and have found it gets read every time and generates very solid reactions from our donors.

[Report this post]

Keith Johns, 24 February 2009, 06:28

Interesting take, but it's unwise to adopt broad advice such as this and apply it narrowly. In other words: your results may vary. And therein lies the key.

Email newsletters are direct marketing. The rules of direct marketing are: test; measure; and analyze. What works for a campaign designed to elect the most powerful man in the world might not apply to all businesses falling under the charity umbrella. (Paging Mr. Obvious to the courtesy phone.)

I think the lesson isn't that email newsletters don't work. It's that one should not *assume* email newsletters must be part of a strategy because they will unquestionably generate the desired results. They may, they may not... and thus email newsletters should be part of a matrix where you methodically learn the best ways to engage your supporters.

Second part of the lesson, and *key*, is to not be shy about abandoning much-loved marketing projects that really aren't working. Some on your team or in your audience may adore your newsletter, but you have to use metrics to make decisions -- not emotions. "What are our goals and are we meeting them?" That must drive the discussion.

In other words: Don't be afraid to kill the Sacred Newsletter.

But don't let someone tell you absolutely not to try it, either.

All that aside, an "email newsletter" isn't a standardized or defined "thing," so the argument has a fuzzy starting point to begin with. One org may send out weekly 8-page highlight reels that do nothing but waste resources. Another org might send engaging, informative, action-driving missives that produce results aligned with defined goals -- and which are of a length required to do the job, whether that be one page or 100.

Email is just one of several ways to talk to people. Consider the advice of others when you build your strategy. But learn how best to use it on your own. And when you share your results with colleagues, do so with perspective.

[Report this post]

David Willingham, 24 February 2009, 11:18

1. Don't apply US rules to the UK. We may speak approximately similar languages, but we are different people.

2. Don't assume that the views and reactions of US voters in a presidential election are the same as the views and reactions of UK supporters of charities.

As a supporter of several charities, I like to be told how my money is being spent, but don't like to see my money being wasted on printing and mailing frequent newsletters. I like to see perhaps two or three mailings a year: more than that is a waste of my charitable donation. An email newsletter every two or three months would be a welcome supplement.

So, 3. Somebody wasted an awful lot of money in paying for a totally inappropriate "expert" to travel from the USA to the UK to address a conference or seminar on a subject on which he was unqualified to speak.

[Report this post]