<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don&#8217;t let Twitter anxiety cloud your focus on key online priorities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://givinginadigitalworld.org/2009/04/08/dont-let-twitter-anxiety-cloud-your-focus-on-key-online-priorities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://givinginadigitalworld.org/2009/04/08/dont-let-twitter-anxiety-cloud-your-focus-on-key-online-priorities/</link>
	<description>Digital fundraising thoughts and news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:55:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Bagnall</title>
		<link>http://givinginadigitalworld.org/2009/04/08/dont-let-twitter-anxiety-cloud-your-focus-on-key-online-priorities/#comment-551</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Bagnall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://givinginadigitalworld.wordpress.com/?p=977#comment-551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am sure you are right, yet its amazing how we have come full circle in a few years. I remember reading Mal Warwick&#039;s &#039;Fundraising on the Internet&#039; about five years ago - his main thesis was that the &#039;Donate&#039; button was no good by itself being passive, and the key to success was email, being proactive and direct. Now marketers are cautious about over reliance on email which is so easily viewed as spam and so easily deleted, and focusing back on the donation page, where, as Comic Relief found one year, a few tweaks to the layout including for example reducing the name fields from four to two reduced drop outs from the page by a whopping 45%.
PS I can&#039;t get any of my friends outside the world of work to show any interest in Twitter at all, and my student age kids who grew up with Facebook can&#039;t see the point at all.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sure you are right, yet its amazing how we have come full circle in a few years. I remember reading Mal Warwick&#8217;s &#8216;Fundraising on the Internet&#8217; about five years ago &#8211; his main thesis was that the &#8216;Donate&#8217; button was no good by itself being passive, and the key to success was email, being proactive and direct. Now marketers are cautious about over reliance on email which is so easily viewed as spam and so easily deleted, and focusing back on the donation page, where, as Comic Relief found one year, a few tweaks to the layout including for example reducing the name fields from four to two reduced drop outs from the page by a whopping 45%.<br />
PS I can&#8217;t get any of my friends outside the world of work to show any interest in Twitter at all, and my student age kids who grew up with Facebook can&#8217;t see the point at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rik Haslam</title>
		<link>http://givinginadigitalworld.org/2009/04/08/dont-let-twitter-anxiety-cloud-your-focus-on-key-online-priorities/#comment-516</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rik Haslam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://givinginadigitalworld.wordpress.com/?p=977#comment-516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Couldn&#039;t agree more. The issue with getting the basics right often comes down to who owns the website, particularly the back-end experience. Is it IT, marketing, digital, comms, etc.

In my experience it is rarely marketing and that leads to all kinds of issues when it comes to overhauling often very poor, out-dated, badly built, badly designed and badly maintained sites that often have pretty awful usability.

For many charities even integrating digital comms across emails, display, landing pages and the donation functionality is fraught with difficulty. Some are there already, a few are getting there quickly, but many are bogged down by confused internal ownership and legacy technology issues.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more. The issue with getting the basics right often comes down to who owns the website, particularly the back-end experience. Is it IT, marketing, digital, comms, etc.</p>
<p>In my experience it is rarely marketing and that leads to all kinds of issues when it comes to overhauling often very poor, out-dated, badly built, badly designed and badly maintained sites that often have pretty awful usability.</p>
<p>For many charities even integrating digital comms across emails, display, landing pages and the donation functionality is fraught with difficulty. Some are there already, a few are getting there quickly, but many are bogged down by confused internal ownership and legacy technology issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

