4 ms·
This is a lesson I learned while writing call-to-action emails. I'd start with a draft that was like, "Due to xxx situation, we have political momentum this w
by Kluny 6y ago
This is a lesson I learned while writing call-to-action emails.
I'd start with a draft that was like,
"Due to xxx situation, we have political momentum this week and want to take advantage of it by canvassing even harder than usual. Can I ask you to take another shift this week?"
That became,
"Will you take a second canvassing shift this week? Due to xxx situation, we have political momentum this week and want to capitalize on it by doubling our canvassing shifts. Will you commit?"
The second gets better results and is way less irritating to read as a recipient, even though it feels aggressive to write it.
- scubbo 6y agoThat's surprising to me. I would have expected the latter to lead to a subconcious "no" upon reading the first sentence, and then you're arguing uphill against that position. I suppose the former is more likely to be mentally filtered out as spam or marketing before the end of the first sentence (no aspersions upon you or your communication! It's valuable. But it also looks similar to the format of spam or marketing, through no fault of your own)
- Kluny 6y agoIn this case, the difference is that I already have buy-in for the people receiving these emails (volunteers who have worked for me before). If it was a cold email, it would be a softer lead for sure.
- akvadrako 6y agoThanks for the example, but I'm not so convinced that's the reason. The second example shows you respect people's time by starting with a minimal abstract that gets the point across, then explaining the details, followed by a conclusion. The first example sounds manipulative and disrespectful.
- Kluny 6y agoAlso possible, good point.
- chc 6y agoI've found this change can be beneficial even in non-email formats like chat. I have a few theories as to why: 1. When you front-load the explanation before the thing you're explaining (the request), the reader doesn't make the mental connection, so the explanation doesn't do its job well. It functions similar to a thesis statement in writing. 2. People want you to get to the point. The essential part of the message is that you want them to do something. Burying it under a long preface comes across as wasting their time and lessens their confidence that the request will be a good use of their time. 3. People have short attention spans, and if they don't find something actionable in a message quickly, they'll just say, "This seems like a Big Thing — I'll come back to this later."