Step 1 of emails people actually open

📣Last email’s poll results 📣

It’s unanimous, y’all, polls are a go! Look out for this month’s poll after the main article.

I shared in my last email that I’m focusing on nonprofit communications that help build stronger relationships between an organization and its supporters. To do that, I try to ground my writing in three simple ideas:

Write from a person.

Write to a person.

Write about a person.

This month, I’ll break down the first one: how to write from a person.

First of all, I get it. It’s easy to let nonprofit communications default to org-centric. It feels official, professional, even safe. But when you write from a specific human, you're not just sending updates. You're starting a conversation.

That looks like:

✅ Signing as a single person (your ED, a program director, a volunteer) to give your supporter a name and a face to connect with

❌ Signing as "the board" or "The XYZ Committee", or even just the organization

Fun fact: I recently read data from M+R suggesting that sending from an individual could hurt email engagement, which conflicted with data I relied on from NextAfter suggesting the opposite. I posted about it on LinkedIn and got some pretty interesting responses. Moral of the story: TEST! But not just for simple things like clicks and opens. Track longer-term effects, like whether your supporters are more likely to take a meeting. Check out the convo: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leekoconnell_im-looking-at-some-dueling-data-yall-share-7446241716304654337-Ggq7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABCbWToBnPIN24shuhF3Ema-fweGjzJEkHM

✅Emails have a person's email address. It tells the supporter that if they hit reply, a human being is on the other side.

❌Emails come from an organizational address. Reply to address is a generic info@ or (gasp!) donotreply

✅Embrace the first person! Feel free to use "I" statements to add authenticity and relatability.

❌Written in the third person, even though there's a single signer or sender

✅Uses "we" in a "you and me together" context to convey a sense of partnership.

❌Uses the royal "we"

✅Sounds conversational, warm, and human, so it feels like it was written for you by someone, not edited to death in committee

❌Bogged down in jargon or brand-speak

People give to people, not organizations. That's true for HOW you write, not just who you write about.

Every communication is an opportunity to invite your supporters into a deeper relationship with your mission. The simplest way to start? Giving them someone they can actually connect with.

We’ll cover part two next month. For now, you can download The Supporter Connection Cheat Sheet, a super-handy checklist to help you write from, to, and about a person. Every time.

Who does your organization usually send its emails from?

Bonus: Reply and let me know how that sender strategy is working for you. We can’t all do our own A/B testing, so let’s learn from each other.

Interesting Nonprofit Link

There’s a lot of debate about human vs. machine surrounding AI at the moment, but I found this post from DonorBox about how automation in general can help you build your capacity for empathy super interesting. The author argues that automation increases empathy by allowing you to maintain a steady stream of stewardship without burning out (obviously with plenty of plugs for DonorBox along the way). I’d love to hear your thoughts—does automation help or hurt your empathy?

Nonprofit Good News

I love it when the caring, innovative people in our sector come up with a super cool new idea. A new organization in Tulsa opened up a nonprofit grocery store to address a community food desert and encourage local farming. Plus, their ED gives off some serious, “I’m-out-of-the-box-and-amazing” energy. Check out the story.