Comments on: What’s Wrong With This Online Appeal?

By: Kirsten Melton

Kirsten Melton — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:16:48 +0000

I agree with Karen and would love to see her suggestion for a donor-centric and compelling opening.

By: Mikael Gotlib

Mikael Gotlib — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 03:18:29 +0000

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.

By: Jennifer Burland Adams

Jennifer Burland Adams — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 03:15:42 +0000

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”

By: Sherry Perlman

Sherry Perlman — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 03:06:11 +0000

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.

By: tbelford

tbelford — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:42:38 +0000

Subject line was: Last Chance to Triple Your Support. Unfortunately I deleted earlier appeals in the series.

By: Linda Taubenreuther

Linda Taubenreuther — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:54:15 +0000

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.

By: Ravi Garla

Ravi Garla — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:47:48 +0000

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.

By: Jeff Schreifels

Jeff Schreifels — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:59:13 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Sargent

Lisa Sargent — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:11:29 +0000

Tom, I’m curious: what was the subject line?

By: Karen Zapp, copywriter

Karen Zapp, copywriter — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:23:07 +0000

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.