|
Bloopers, Blunders and Boo-Boos |
Everybody's done it at least once or twice. We've worked really hard on a newsletter, action alert, or fundraising appeal and launched it. Then after we sent it, we noticed an error or typo and it was too late to stop the mailing. Or maybe we launched a message meant for just one state or region to the entire list.
When I worked at a nonprofit, we did all of those once and some twice. Once we accidentally sent a message meant for one city to the entire country. Another time we had a typo in the subject line - which was worse than if it had been in the body, since even people who didn't open the message had a chance to see our mistake.
But the biggest mistake I personally ever made, by a long shot, was coding "Dear Sally" instead of "Dear *first name*" into the greeting of an email message. This message was set to go to our entire list - several hundred thousand folks. Our members didn't know what was going on - if we had scrambled their data or what. Also, it was painfully obvious whose mistake it was since my first name was in the message! I can see the humor in it now, but at the time it was mortifying.
Amusing as this trip down memory lane is, let's talk about practical matters. How can nonprofits avoid making e-mail mistakes?
All of my errors had a common theme: too few people in the mix working on an urgent deadline in a medium that is designed for instant publication. Errors stand out to members, and it's a good idea to put some formal guardrails on the process.
One of our partner agencies, Adams Hussey & Associates, uses a Quality Control (QC) checklist for their messages. Here are some helpful tips:
- Formalize and standardize a QC checklist that is filled out for each unique email and web page
- Fill out the QC check list each and every time - even for cloned messages.
- Have an outside person (someone other than the person responsible for set-up) complete the final QC check list. The new pair of eyes will always see things in a fresh light.
- Test emails in the various email clients. But remember when you make a code change to fix an issue in one email client, you must go back and check to see that this didn't change the way it appears in all the others.
- It is critical to check the personalized data with as many different email addresses and unique records as possible. For those with a direct mail background, this is the equivalent of checking data set-ups.
Emergencies happen - sometimes you need to get an email out ASAP and you won't necessarily have the time to go through a full checklist, especially at a nonprofit when your issues can be in the news on any given day. It's a good idea to at least get 2 colleagues to quickly proof the email anyway, as long as they can turn it around quickly.
Anyone have a favorite blooper story? Share it in the comments! I can't have been the only one to ever make a blunder like this. (I hope.)
Subscriptions
Subscribe to the RSS feed
Subscribe to receive posts via email:
Convio Clients
Get answers to product questions, submit and rate product ideas, join "Birds of a Feather" discussions, and more. Join the Online Community
Videos
Photos
Categories
Blogs We're Following
Alltop - Nonprofit
Beaconfirewire
Beth's Blog
Betsy's Blog
Donor Power Blog
Echo Ditto
ePolitics
Everyday Giving
FI Space
Future Leaders in Philanthropy
Frogloop
Getting Attention
Give and Take
Global Voices
Katya's Nonprofit Marketing Blog
Mom at Home
Nonprofit Success
NTEN
OrgMarketing.com
Sea Change Strategies
Social Actions
Sue's Muse
Tactical Philanthropy
The Agitator
Walkathon Guide
Zen and the Art of Nonprofit Technology
URL:
One of the blogs I read is Stanley Bing's, and this post today reminded me of the other side of e-mail proofreading, more so in the office rather than fundraising email, but anyway: http://stanleybing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/05/e-mail-oops-of-the-millennium-so-far/
URL: http://www.akcf.org
I would appreciate having a copy of someone's QC checklist as a starting point for developing ours. Thank you!
URL:
I hear you, Lloyd. FIX IT!
URL: http://www.connectioncafe.com
I was thinking the same thing, that it would be nice if people could respond to specific comments in a sub-thread. I think the fresh pair of eyes is key too - some of the mistakes from my past were from just being way too close to the material, whether I was reviewing it for a colleague or getting it reviewed myself. TESTing, Doggett, can you hear me?
URL:
Oh, the Dear Sally email. In the time of "mistakes have been made," kudos to you for digging this one out of your own personal vault and spotlighting it. Think the tips are great -- best one is the fresh pair of eyes. A system works wonders. But if nobody's available or you're too rushed, grab anybody who hasn't seen the message before to take a look. BTW, would be great if users could respond to responses. Madeline's TEST message rocks.
URL: http://www.thecrazydoglady.net
So glad we are talking about errors! I am a big fan about talking about them so others can learn from our mistakes. As a former employee at AH&A, I can tell you how GREAT the checklists were and how many mystics they prevented. Also, many of the items on the lists were added after we did make a mistake -- so my suggestion is to always have your checklist as a working document. And, fortunately, online when you make a mistake you don't have to reprint 500,000 letters or try to come up with $30,000 additional postage like you do in the mail... so don't beat yourself up too much!
URL:
Great post! I can't stress enough how important it is to have a second pair of eyes (or 3 or 4) reviewing a message before it launches. Someone who is not involved from the beginning is especially helpful. Errors are bound to happen when you are rushing. The QC sheet we developed has over 40 steps -- all of which are things you should look over before hitting launch -- and more than a few of which came from something that didn't exactly go right! In the online world we're constantly required to quickly push things out the door, but it is worth taking the time to carefully review every component of the message before launching. PS: It's not as scary as it sounds -- it only takes about 15 minutes and is worth it!
URL:
Sally. I have never made any mistakes. I don't know what you're talking about. TEST!
URL:
Dear Sally, Heh. This is a great jaunt down memory lane. Don't forget my advocacy campaign blooper of all time - Lloyd Doggett getting THREE different campaign asks from his constitutnets asking him to please stop opposing a bill he was actually a co-sponsor of already. Alas. Great blog! Good work!