Over the last few years, email has followed the path of direct mail flyers – becoming an almost “anti-marketing” channel.

Supporters aren’t opening – or converting – from email at the rate they used to. In turn, Org’s are increasing the penetration and frequency of email. And a vicious cycle spins.

The cost of sending one more email is low, which seems to encourage Org’s to dial up the number of emails they send – inadvertently “hiding” the inefficiency.

Campaign Monitor data has the nonprofit sector performing worse than average in both Open and Click-through rates. In fact it’s in the bottom 5 verticals, measured by click-to-open – the most crucial number showcasing donor interest in the message.

But what if there’s another way – that’s more efficient for the Org and simultaneously provides a better experience for donors?

The 2.7% click-through rate in Campaign Monitor’s data doesn’t represent 3 donors that appreciated and reacted to the message sent to them. It means that 97 donors out of 100 should have never received that email in the first place. 

That % is more in line with Display or Paid Social CTR, not Direct Mail engagement rates. But unlike Display or Paid Social, Email is still intrusive marketing, like Direct Mail – interrupting the flow and entering donors’ private space. Communications sent to their digital inboxes should earn the right to be there, the same as direct mail sends. 

In the case of Direct Mail, sending donation requests excessively without a strong engagement rate quickly becomes cost-prohibitive due to the high cost of every individual piece.

With email, the cost is not so explicit but is still present in the form of “quiet quitting” – a slowly declining engagement rate and average donation value that are (dangerously) much less noticeable.

Convincing the Org – and the CFO, who’s likely gotten used to some v large numbers in their “Email channel”  row in their financial report – to send fewer emails is a complicated sell.

Here are 3 approaches I’ve deployed that paid dividends:

Add Real Metrics Around Email Engagement into the Mix. 

Open- and click-through rates are the most explicit metrics, but they don’t tell the whole story. My two favorite metrics are “email file size as the share of total donor file” and “number of emails sent before the first donation from email.” These metrics show whether donors are getting fatigued from the email channel by answering two essential questions:

a) Are more donors unsubscribing over time? Just looking at the email file size is not helpful for successful organizations – their email file will grow over time. But it should grow as fast as the overall donor file.

b) Are donors finding our communications valuable? In this case, the value is represented by their willingness to donate again as an outcome of the email sent.

Study Donor Segment Behavioral Patterns. 

I’ve shared this image several times before:

Certain segments of your donors will never respond to the emails you’re sending and should be permanently excluded from the file. The easiest way to look at it is by using Affinity categories, Age/Gender, and Donation Cause dimensions in Google Analytics or your other Web Analytics platform. 

If certain combinations of the above dimensions are significantly underrepresented in your Email source/medium report against the “general donor population,” that’s a solid signal to exclude them from your file permanently. And on the flip side, combinations representing your top 20% of the ‘best-performing email donors” are the ones to focus on. I also use these segments as reporting dimensions for the tests listed below.

Focus on Quality, not Quantity.

This test performed by Next After is a beauty – plain, less promotional, under-designed emails tend to work better for nonprofits. They carry a more genuine sense and sensibility. How can you lean into this insight? By reducing your email file size.

Clean out the “noise” from the data. For starters, suppress the donors that would never react to your emails no matter what’s in them. It’ll also help make reports more meaningful, helping you launch better, more sensitive testing. Divide email tests into 4 categories, using the above segments for each and split them 50/50 into test and control:

a) Frequency – what’s the minimum frequency of email sends that provides the same monthly revenue from a particular segment?

b) Headlines or Topics – what topics drive the highest open rates for a particular segment?

c) Design – what’s the most straightforward, shortest asset that provides the same monthly revenue from a particular segment?

d) Call to Action and Authenticity – how deep into the email can I go without including a great big, colorful, pulsating “Donate Now” button? Can you make it as far as the footer – and will it provide the same monthly revenue from a particular segment? It did for me at UNICEF.

Wrapping Up

Think in terms of audience and donor cohorts. I dare you to take a long, hard, cold look at your email file. Who’s engaging with this channel? Some will be, for sure. Prioritize only them. 

Does it sound hazardous to prioritize email quality over quantity for EOY fundraising season? Maybe a better question or two is “how donor-centric is your approach to fundraising?” and “what value do you attach to donor retention?”