73. Some Personal News

Send fewer emails at EOY -> drive higher $$$ + What Google's use of TikTok teaches us

Nov 13, 2023

A very warm welcome to all the new subscribers. I’m thrilled to have you as readers and truly appreciate your feedback and support.

Omni-channel marketing made simple.

Wouldn’t EOY reporting be miles easier if you could just say “Oh you wanna a campaign update? Sure. Copy, paste, done.”

Then it sounds like you might find Feathr super valuable.

Check it out for yourself - feathr.co

Today’s SPN includes the following:

What Google using TikTok to launch Pixel 8 can teach us
How different modes and mediums engage different audience cohorts
Why focus on quality over quantity this EOY → $$$
This test performed by Next After is a beauty
The email footer: under-appreciated and under-utilized

As with every edition of SPN please reach out with any questions or comments. I respond to every single one.

Let’s dig in.

Learnings from Launching Pixel 8

Regular SPN readers know that I’m a big proponent of scavenging for inspiration outside of our sector, especially when it comes to how other brands use particular channels or engage audience cohorts.

And there’s plenty to celebrate about how Google have activated their TikTok activity to support launching the new Pixel 8.

They started a month ago with a cheeky swipe at Apple - counterposing the glossy ads that iPhone run versus rich product demos. The concept works nicely and shows off that the Pixel can live up to the “razzle dazzle”, as well as teasing strong features.

Learning: With nearly 200k likes and a healthy comments section, a non-glossy un-polished approach can work. Keeping content focused on your “why”and fitting the platform grammar resonates.

The campaign uses a “Pixel vs…” construct and the problem gets matched with the appropriate Pixel feature. Check out these examples:

Pixel vs Noise (13M views) gets paired with the the Audio Magic Eraser.

Pixel vs Bad Eyesight (27M) promotes the SuperRes Zoom.

Pixel vs Roller Skating (5M) folds in the Pixel watch.

Seriously high viewing numbers.

Vs Stair Rolling fares less well, with under 20k views 🤷‍♂️

Learning: Test organic content for take up then boost proven content with an ad budget. Google also uses comments well, joining in the conversation.

Given creators are the prime target audience for some of the more advanced features, TikTok is an ideal platform. But using creators for the “Vs…” construct would add another level of authenticity. Maybe the next set of ads will be more creator focused?

Google does Collaboration really well. It’s the most critical and nuanced part of the strategy here too.

One of the videos starts off with a dance-creator Kieran Lai, who demonstrates using the Pixel’s “Audio Magic Eraser” to more easily create and edit content. Google mark this as an Ad but it doesn’t surface on the official Google Pixel TikTok account, nor does it tag the Google Pixel TikTok account, or use any sort of campaign hashtag.

Learning: The upside to this is that the content comes across as more authentic. The downside is that though the Ad helps drive brand awareness there’s no further CTA links for Google Pixel. Feels like a missed opportunity.

Google also worked with bigger names on high production quality content that lives on their Google Pixel page organically and is likely also distributed through paid media.

Learning: Mix up the media forms and personalities. Then re-use these assets across other digital media platforms. Most Org’s can’t bring some big picture star power like comedian Druski or an NBA player to the table. But who is your version of that?

If you go to the Google Pixel TikTok account, you’ll see tons of memes, humor and low production value skits that aim to convey the product benefits of the Google Pixel. They’re likely lower cost since they don’t feature major creators, and nicely convey authenticity and relatability rather than star power.

Learning: Horses for courses. Depending on the tastes of your Supporters, there may be plenty who would find little memes and skits content engaging and entertaining, and put them in a place where they’re more receptive to your messaging.

They also have “hero” content on the page too - the classic, high quality unboxing the product-type video or shining professional advertising - taking a page out of Apple’s consumer hardware marketing playbook. This approach will also grab some people’s attention, though I think differentiation is hard.

Learning: Build content that brings top of funnel awareness to more pragmatic demonstrations of your mission’s benefit.

There’s an amusing meta-point here too that Google using TikTok as a marketing platform (yes, in addition to campaigns on YouTube and elsewhere) is a tacit concession that TikTok does work well and is a worthy use of Google’s very data-driven ad budget.

Fewer Emails Result in Higher $$$

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:

Table

Description automatically generated

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?”

It’s 11/12. You’ve plenty of time to run tests between now and 12/1.

Now onto the fun stuff!