|
E-mail Testing: Long Copy v. Short Copy
"E-mail copy has to be short and pithy. Nobody reads long e-mails." That's one of the first truisms I ever heard about e-mail fundraising. The trouble with this truism is that it hasn't been proven true. MarketingSherpa recently published a comprehensive study of e-mail metrics that I downloaded for $149. One of the interesting charts showed what Business-to-Consumer marketers tested in their e-mails, and with what impact. "Long copy v. Short copy" was the item that was tested with the least conclusive results. The argument between long copy v. short copy has been around longer than the oldest direct mail copywriter I know. St. Paul, who wrote the first documented fundraising letter in history, in his letter to the Thessalonians, certainly preferred long copy. I'm reminded of an old Yogi Berra-ism. He once remarked that, "Good pitching will always stop good hitting...and vice versa." The history of direct mail fundraising, and, as far as I have been able to prove, internet fundraising, is similar: "Good copy will always outpull bad copy." Sometimes copy has to be long to be good. Making bad copy longer will never make it better, and I know a few preachers who prove that every Sunday morning. Don't test good long copy against eviscerated, formerly good copy, and expect the latter to win. Don't test bad short copy against bad long copy and expect any results at all. Instead, do exactly what you've been doing in direct mail. Make every word count. Convey the offer clearly to the prospective donor. Close the sale with powerful action copy. If you have trouble with your response rates, NPA has some excellent direct mail fundraising copywriters who've been re-trained to understand the nuances of e-mail fundraising. We'd be glad to write some new e-mails that really work. November 2003 | |
|
|
|
