More links, more clicks. More clicks, more revenue.
Keep that in mind, and you’ll raise more funds through email, according to the Silverpop blog, at Why 21 Links Could Be Key to Your Email Success.
That’s right: 21 links.
If you want recipients to engage with your emails, give them plenty of opportunities to learn about interesting things. Deliver messages triggered by their behaviors. Serve up dynamic content related directly to their interests. And give them at least 21 links in every email.
This seems completely counter to the traditional DM approach of ask for one thing and one thing only.
Ask many times sure, 21 times maybe, but only ask for one thing, so you don’t confuse your audience with what it is you want them to do.
The author of the original blog says more links creates better ‘dwell’ time, and the longer the dwell, the more likely you’ll get a click.
OK, sounds plausible.
But surely ‘dwell’ time is important in direct mail as well, and the idea of putting 21 DIFFERENT asks in a direct mail letter is just nuts, so why or how is this different in an email?
Jeff – any thoughts??
This seems completely counter to the traditional DM approach of ask for one thing and one thing only.
Ask many times sure, 21 times maybe, but only ask for one thing, so you don’t confuse your audience with what it is you want them to do.
The author of the original blog says more links creates better ‘dwell’ time, and the longer the dwell, the more likely you’ll get a click.
OK, sounds plausible.
But surely ‘dwell’ time is important in direct mail as well, and the idea of putting 21 DIFFERENT asks in a direct mail letter is just nuts, so why or how is this different in an email?
Jeff – any thoughts??
The writer of the original post at Silverpop was a little vague on this, but I doubt he was saying 21 links means 21 different calls to action. Whatever he was saying, I would strongly advise against that; it would likely be a disaster for response, sending your recipients down all kinds of rabbit-trails.
My recommendation (and I should have been clear about this): Lots and lots of links, all of them to the same place.
The writer of the original post at Silverpop was a little vague on this, but I doubt he was saying 21 links means 21 different calls to action. Whatever he was saying, I would strongly advise against that; it would likely be a disaster for response, sending your recipients down all kinds of rabbit-trails.
My recommendation (and I should have been clear about this): Lots and lots of links, all of them to the same place.
The future of fundraising is not about social media, online video, or SEM. It’s not about any technology, medium, or technique. It’s about donors. If you need to raise funds from donors, you need to study them, respect them, and build everything you do around them. And the future? It’s already here. More.
Jeff Brooks has been serving the nonprofit community for more than 35 years and blogging about it since 2005. He considers fundraising the most noble of pursuits and hopes you’ll join him in that opinion. You can reach him at jeff [at] jeff-brooks [dot] com. More.
The future of fundraising is not about social media, online video, or SEM. It’s not about any technology, medium, or technique. It’s about donors. If you need to raise funds from donors, you need to study them, respect them, and build everything you do around them. And the future? It’s already here. More.
Jeff Brooks has been serving the nonprofit community for more than 30 years and blogging about it since 2005. He considers fundraising the most noble of pursuits and hopes you’ll join him in that opinion. You can reach him at jeff [at] jeff-brooks [dot] com.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.