Open or Delete?
I just received this email from "Doug Bishop" asking me to make a donation to the Edwards campaign. I have used this tactic before to raise money for organizations--sending an appeal to the list from a fellow "everyday person"--but I've never changed the "from" name on the outgoing email. I worry that if the email comes from a new name that list subscribers don't recognize they'll either just delete it, or worse, report it as spam. What do others think about this tactic?
So how important are your subject lines? Ivan Boothe of the Genocide Intervention Network is a bit doubtful:
I think it IS important to write messages as a regular person would, and sign them with a real person's name or group of names (the MoveOn model).
But I'm *really* skeptical that, say, people would be more likely to open an email from "Ivan Boothe" than from "Genocide Intervention Network." Perhaps if you have an unfortunately-named organization like the Political Citizens Action Committee for America, it makes sense to build a personal relationship with a single person.
Yet for me, I know that I am subscribed to at least a dozen lists, and I rarely remember "oh yes, this person is the one from that campaign." Then again, I'm probably not the typical user, so maybe others do develop a personal relationship with each of the member organizations they subscribe to.
Much of the group response was to test it. Eric Eckl, of Beaconfire Consulting, expands on the idea:
A subject line test means sending the same email, with different subject lines, to small batches of names (say 1% to 10% of your list per subject line). Wait 24 or 48 hours, and compare how many people opened each one. Whichever subject line gets opened the most, voila! That's the one you send to the rest of your list.
The science of statistics does apply here. Small samples = imprecise and unreliable results. Large samples = precise and reliable results. And if your list is really small, you may not have enough names to send a wave of subject lines before you send the full email. But you can still split your list into segments and note the findings for subsequent emails.
From Convio, Dave Crooke adds:
Consider every big email drop as a testing opportunity, and test one, single very minor variant, such as a subject line change. Use the information as a continuous improvement / feedback loop.
Finally, Will Hull of United Cerebral Palsy offers some useful tips learned through experience:
I have learned that the more visceral that you can make the subject line, the greater chance you have of getting people to open it. I used to work, helping Congressional offices to send franked e-newsletters from their offices. Putting things in the subject line such as "Survey" or "We want to know what you think" or if you don't have a survey, something like "Doesn't it make you mad" or "What if our air isn't clean in ten years?"
Questions usually do a lot to draw in traffic. To get a better response rate, try to convert your audience into subscribers and then subsets of that where you are micro-targeting a specific interest. For Congressional members it was separating anyone into Energy policy, Agriculture, The War in Iraq, etc. If we just blasted to a list that wasn't a subscriber list it was a open/read rate of 3-7%, for those who were subscribed 25-30% and those who were in the subset, 40% and above.
Get to know your audience and what they are interested in and you will find that your launch numbers get smaller but your open/read rates get larger. So, in other words you are working smarter and not harder to get the message to the intended recipient and using your time more efficiently when you engage your readers on what they want to read about.
I suppose much of the same can be said for subject lines of blogs: Did the subject line of this one convince you to read it?
Join the discussions at NTEN Affinity Groups and The Progressive Exchange.
