Are Nonprofit Email Newsletters Really A Waste of Time?

Thanks for starting a good discussion and helping some NPOs approach this from a different angle. Mark

Thomas Gensemer is certainly someone to listen to when it comes to anything online. If you are running a political campaign and you fail to follow his lead you do so at your peril. However, I caution to remember that there is difference between motivating giving during a political campaign and the relationship necessary for sustained donor support. I think the answer here is not "longer" newsletter vs "short" messages. (where have we heard long verses short debate before? - Direct Mail). The key is consistent and appropriate messaging for charities to their supporters. Most likely a combination of both "long and short" is the answer, but charities must base decisions on testing and review of web trends and analytic data available from most communication tools. The focus must always be on relationship building in communications, not just quick communication or "hit and run" fundraising. Mr. Gensemer is a brilliant man but when it comes to charity fundraising vs. political fundraising the differences should inform the campaign design. Ted Hart, CEO http://www.tedhart.com http://www.p2pfundraising.org

Thank you all for your responses. I think healthy debate is a very good thing, and I'm glad that Thomas posed a critical question for the industry to discuss. I think we all are in violent consensus that the quality of communications is what counts, and that far too often, email newsletters are sent out due to schedule vs. a compelling reason to communicate. I also concur with many of you that single subject communiques are sometimes more appropriate than organization wide unifying messages. Conservation international has an array of communications in its arsenal pertaining to different areas of work/ interest. In response to the posting by "liberal art", I would like to clarify that a passive ask in a newsletter is always a good thing and something we always recommend, but is very different than an explicit campaign focused email. Many of our clients generate a great deal of revenue through passive asks in newsletters/communiques, vs. hard campaigns. I'd also find it strange to characterize stewardship communications as duplicitious. Let the debate continue!

This is to some degree this a non-issue. If your organization is treating communications for your mass small-dollar supporters the same as your high-dollar supporters your email program is probably not very effective... But to not include some ask in your communications is disingenuous. Your organization is not your supporters’ friend sharing an anecdote. You’re trying to achieve a common goal with the their help, be it thru action or fundraising. Anyone subscribing to your general list understands the implications of signing up. And they likely understand that you’re only priming them for a future ask with inspiring stories. Rather than duplicitously sending multiple messages before you make that ask, being upfront with it at least respects the recipient's intelligence. So I have to agree with Thomas Gensemer here, and oddly enough Vinay inadvertently agrees with Thomas also, as his example above includes an ask in the sidebar for $100 contribution. Just be upfront. If your message resonates, you should take advantage of that moment and give your supporters something to do to help. That's why they signed up in the first place... Disclosure: I work with Conservation International and other Convio clients and previously worked with Thomas at Blue State Digital.

At The Humane Society of the United States, we don’t publish a periodical email newsletter, except for small titles targeting specific subgroups (such as animal care and control professionals). We feel they are time-consuming to produce and, in the era of ever-increasing inbox competition, not likely to get read. That said, we are finding it difficult to convey the full breadth of our work in single-issue communications. So we occasionally produce what we call “Campaign Updates” to bridge this gap (although they often feature actions themselves). Vinay is right that not all emails should be requests to do something. Dedicated thank you emails and inspirational updates belong in the mix. Personally I think we can cultivate our donors without producing long-form emails that come with that intimidating tiny scroll bar. The discipline of a periodical email newsletter is good to have, but on balance I think regular single-issue cultivation emails, targeted to your supporter’s interests and past behavior, are a better way to go. In a perfect world, we’d test the two concepts over a long-enough period to get valid results. Any volunteers?

I think the original premise of the article is flawed. The Obama campaign is by nature a short-lived operation and it's a sprint to the finish line focused solely on donations and taking action. Usually a presidential campaign lasts from 18 months to 2 years. A newsletter doesn't make sense for them. But a nonprofit organization usually intends to be around for a lot longer than 18 months/2 years. A newsletter can be an important part of the communications strategy for cultivation, education, and providing value to members. I don't think comparing the Obama campaign to a nonprofit is really a valid comparison.

I'm sympathetic to Mr. Gensemer's argument, but in the end agree with Vinay that nonprofit enewsletters have an important role to play. First, to Mr. Gensemer's point, enewsletters often: 1) require more time to setup than any other email sent out by organizations given the breadth of content required and 2) have lower open rates and lower click rates than many other other emails. (At Defenders of Wildlife, our enewsletter is slightly below average in terms of email open rates for us.) Moreover, we often see higher unsubscribe rates for emails that don't have a clear call to action. However, as Vinay points out, we need to build a long-term relationship with our supporters. Those same people who read our Defenders Magazine and monthly enewsletter are often the ones that leave us bequests. (More precisely, that's been the case with Defenders Magazine readers/small donors and I hypothesize that it will be so for our newsletter.) It engages an important set of constituents interested in this type of information. The newsletter also demonstrates some heft or substance for the organization and an email break from action and donation emails. So what's the solution? I don't know for sure, but I would suggest that nonprofits should strive in their enewsletters to: 1) limit the time investment by maximizing the repurposing of content from their sites (or visa-versa); 2) ensuring their are multiple forms of engagement in every enewsletter (we always have an "action of the month" and typically put in downloadable wallpaper and a survey); and 3) to Vinay's point, make sure the content is engaging on the topic of our activity (rather than about us as an organization) and thanks our supporters/cultivates our donors. Finally, this is mostly hypothesis supported by little fact. I think we need to take a harder look at trying to survey/measure the real impact of our enewsletters. Perhaps we should ask donors if the enewsletter contributed to their contributing?

Great article. Everyone likes to read inspirational stories, look at Randy Pausch as as example. His inspirational story touched millions. In addition to newsletters, non-profits also need to focus on social media as well to stay ahead of the game and connect with their audience.

At some point in time an organization has to communicate the important facts, the concepts and the ideas behind sound bites if they want to sustain support. Getting elected by sending emails with short calls to action and with campaign slogans is easier when you have money, resources and an inspirational candidate. If it were only that "easy" for nonprofits. Nonprofits compete with many other organizations for attention and resources, not just another candidate. Nonprofits have to show results beyond winning the election. A charity has to be transparent and open too, but it is night-and-day from a political campaign. While some fundamentals are the same it is a different world. Nonprofits need to know thier audience and what they want then use the right technology and techniques to reach them and get them involved. The one size fits all idea has caused many organizations to alienate donors. I've had the pleasure of hearing Vinay speak many times and always learn something we can use. Keep up the good work.

I agree with Vinay - these newsletters MUST contain more than a recitation of what has happened in the organization. Bring on compelling outcomes, stories of accomplishment and impact. Pictures, even embedded video - anything that brings alive that my donation is having the desired effect.

If I donate to your organization and you treat me like Mr. Gensemer suggests, not only will I stop donating, I'll make sure others do as well. I support charities because I like their mission and their success stories. I'm not caught up in a cause or a persona so much that I become a mindless person that you have to drive to take action. Treat me with respect and I will take the actions you need.