From the Nominator

"McGill Annual Giving performed an A/B test to compare two direct mail approaches to measure the impact of appeal format on donor participation and dollars raised. The impetus for this test was to determine whether a departure from the standard 8.5x14” letter format would have any bearing on response rates, as charitable appeals continue to compete for donor attention. 

To determine the outcome, we conducted split-run tests on our alumni donor pool. The control group received a traditional, text-focused letter, while the test group received a stylized solicitation brochure. Near identical copy was used in both formats. The test was performed over two mailings, for a reach of about 23,000 alumni in the loyal-but-lapsed, non-leadership segment. 

The results confirmed that our traditional Annual Giving solicitation letters outperformed the stylized brochure concept. The brochure had a lesser impact on donor participation and dollars raised across all demographic and donor loyalty cohorts. The brochures generated a 4% directly-sourced participation rate, while the traditional letters garnered 6% participation, a substantial gap by Annual Giving standards. 

While perhaps a counterintuitive entry as a Best Annual Giving Initiative, a project that helps identify what does not have impact is sometimes as valuable as the contrary. In trying to solve for donor ennui through a design strategy, this A/B direct mail test applied best practices in creative collaboration, strategic constituent segmentation, and data analysis. The results helped inform McGill’s creative approach to its direct mail program, a lesson that spares other institutions’ from taking the risk!"

From the Judges

Many annual giving professionals are struggling to decide the future of direct mail within their portfolios, and McGill Annual Giving provided a replicable example of how to test with limited expense. Effective analysis will allow more effective DM campaigns--for anyone.