Call to inaction? Solidifying the strands of your organization's Web site.

From your own online explorations, you know the difference between email and your Web site. Effective email is aggressive, demanding attention, offering multiple "click here" options and suggesting irresistibly why the target-individual should perform that click. Web sites sit placidly, waiting for visitors to arrive.

The difference in the two in many ways parallels the difference between a mosquito, hovering and looking for a place to bite and a Venus Fly Trap, waiting for an enticed insect to wander into its maw, transforming visitor to victim.

Not that your visitors are victims, nor should you regard them as victims. The exhilaration at transforming a casual visitor, or one driven to your site by a provocative email message, should be based on two factors:

1) The positive action was the result of your validity and integrity, not your trickiness;

2)You can demonstrate both psychological satisfaction and fulfilled actualization of the promise that generated the visitor's positive action.

If ever the Clarity Commandment should be the single most significant guidepost, it's on the home page or landing page, if you've driven someone there through an email message.

What percentage of nonprofit organizations know and recognize that should-be-obvious commandment? Explore competitive nonprofit Web sites and you'll be not necessarily surprised but necessarily dismayed at the low percentage.

The principal obstacle to clarity seems to be the erroneous triumph of organizational ego over salesmanship.

Now, don't look for stupidity nor obvious chest-thumping. We're discussing the difference between maximized impact and anything else ... anything else ... because anything else risks "Click: I'm outta here."

So the pro-literacy site whose home page begins--"The [NAME OF] foundation's mission is 'supporting family literacy in the United States by fostering and promoting the development and expansion of new and existing literacy and educational programs.' Donations are made that relate to programs and projects that aid in this stated mission,"--isn't either defective nor unprofessional. Its relegation into second-tier status is because it begins, as so many do, as a "We" rather than as a "You," active voice gives way to passive voice, and specificity is absent.

Oh? You question, then, if they hadn't constructed the site that way, how is the individual who lands there supposed to know what it's all about? The question, in the year 2006, is self-answering: That individual is supposed to know, or the person wouldn't have landed there in the first place. People don't arrive by accident, any more than they buy a plane ticket, take the flight, get off the plane, and ask, "Where am I?" Anyone who travels that way, by air or by electronic connection, just isn't a good prospect.

Somewhat closer to effectiveness is this one, from a religious institution:

"[NAME OF] Church is a vibrant family congregation located in a north [NAME OF CITY] neighborhood setting. Reformed in its theology and worship, the congregation of 400 adherants enjoys its life together, even as it reaches out to the greater [NAME OF CITY] community and beyond in ministry and mission. Our Preschool, a NAEYC accredited early childhood education ministry, has been the congregation's premier ministry since 1970,"

What is the difference? Why is this one, also primarily a "We" site, more congruent with the rules for effective Web sites than the other example? It's because it anticipates the reason a visitor has arrived and answers the most frequent question. (Should we overlook the misspelling of "adherents"? I say no, because never in a professional nonprofit communication does an excuse exist for misspelling or grammatical errors, other than the careful and deliberate use of "ain't" and similar constructions for emphasis.)

Professionalism versus sincerity

Nonprofits that cede total control over their Web sites to commercial Webmasters run a peculiar risk: they can preside uneasily over too slick a site, mirroring commercial enterprises.

This deep into Web ubiquity and dominance, slickness can be a serious detriment, because it can negate sincerity.

In many conventional messages, in print and for that matter in one-to-one presentations, overproduction not only can be as negative a factor as underproduction," it can be even more negative a factor because the cost-per-contact is considerably higher.

So what criteria should you apply to your sites, assuming the ego factor is out of the way and recognition of the competitive nature of all fundraising is accepted? Here are a few criteria:

n Primary--Of what value is the site in explanation and recruitment? Is it just a "blah" repetition of the ,!We need help" cry? Is it a "How fine we are" crowing? Or, is it saturated with sincerity, promise, and guileless authenticity?

n Primary--Does it offer the visitor an opportunity to explore, within its rhetorical catacombs, each level adding to the power that engenders the exploration?

n Primary--Does it imply a uniqueness in both mission and achievement, so an action resulting from the visit supplies ego-food for the donor? (Egofood for the donor is a giant key," ego-food for the Webmaster is a mistake.)

n Secondary, but not insignificant--Is the site well organized and visually attractive without seeming so formidable the potential donor feels relegated to a position of minor importance?

n Third, but not insignificant--Is the terminology bright, contemporary, and intellectually non-threatening?

The Web is the most emotion-laden mass-communication medium ever to present itself, not just to us in the nonprofit arena but to any person, business, structure, governmental branch, religious institution, or worthy or unworthy enterprise seeking to proselytize or convince powerfully enough to initiate a positive beneficial action.

Because of its potency and universality, you can find as many opinions of what works and what doesn't as there are commentators willing to risk such opinions.

These are mine.

Herschell Gordon Lewis is the principal of Lewis Enterprises, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., consulting with and writing direct response copy for clients worldwide. His 29th book, a completely updated revision of his classic "Open Me Now," was recently published. Among his other books are "Asinine Advertising"; "How to Write Powerful Fund Raising Letters"; "On the Art of Writing Copy"; "Marketing Mayhem"; and "Effective Email Marketing." His Web site is www.herschellgordonlewis.com 11-12