Nothing is forever, even email

Yesterday I talked about how important it was to send welcome messages when you discover old email addresses. Today on the Return Path Blog, Tami Monahan Foreman shares an example email that does just that, but not as well as one might hope.

You are receiving this email because sometime during the past 20+ years you have registered with PACE, or one of our affiliated companies, to receive free information and offers concerning child custody matters […]

Tami is appropriately amused by the statement that she opted in in the past 20 years, despite never having custody issues nor ever hearing of this company before. I just can’t fathom the email planning session. Did no one consider that the maximum time for a custody dispute is 18 years? Were these senders even thinking about what they were saying?
And, yes, I realize that this may have been a B2B targeted (or not so targeted) mailing for court officers, social workers and others who mediate custody disputes. In that case it’s even worse, how many people have had the same job over the last 20 years? How many municipalities and courts even had email in 1991?
Clearly there was not a lot of thought put into the target of the email. And this is what, more often than not, defines email marketing in the minds of many people outside thsi industry.

Marketers — THIS is what you are up against. For all the good you are trying to do, many, many consumers and even more people at ISPs think THIS represents the thinking of too many folks who claim the title “email marketer.” — Tami Monahan Foreman

The attitude of ‘once and opt-in always an opt-in’ is all too familiar to me. Recently I had a client explain to me, in all seriousness, that he truly believed that he was still entitled to mail email addresses that opted in 10 or more years ago. Even though the recipient opted in to a company that was eventually purchased by his company. Even though there had been zero contact in the last 10 years. If he wanted to send those people mail, then it was opt-in and no one could stop him. Unfortunately for him, neither Spamhaus nor the ISPs agreed with that point of view and much of his mail was having some fairly serious delivery problems.
I know that the last thing any email marketer wants to do is remove an email address from a list. But sometimes you need to think about what you’re doing and not mail someone just because at some point in the past you think they might have maybe opted in

Related Posts

Relevance or Permission

One of the discussions that surrounds email marketing is whether relevance trumps permission or permission trumps relevance. I believe this entire discussion is built on a false dichotomy.
Sending relevant email is important. Not only do recipients expect mail to be relevant, but the ISPs often make delivery decisions on how relevant their users find your mail. Marketers that send too much irrelevant mail find themselves struggling to get inbox placement.
Permission makes sending relevant mail all that much easier. Sure, really good marketers can probably collect, purchase, beg, borrow and steal enough information to know that their unsolicited email is relevant. But how many marketers are actually that good?
My experience suggest that most marketers aren’t that good. They don’t segment their permission based lists to send relevant mail. They’re certainly not going to segment their non-permission based lists to send relevant mail.
Macy’s, for instance, decided that I would find their Bloomingdales mail relevant. I didn’t, and unsubscribed from both publications, after registering a complaint with their ESP. Had Macy’s asked about sending me Bloomies mail I wouldn’t have opted-in, but I probably wouldn’t have unsubbed from Macy’s mail, too.
So what’s your stand? Does relevance trump permission? Or does permission trump relevance? How much relevant, unsolicited mail do you get? How much irrelevant permission based mail do you get? And what drives you to unsubscribe from a permission based list?

Read More

Spam is not a marketing strategy

Unfortunately, this fact doesn’t stop anyone from spamming as part of their marketing outreach. And it’s not just email spam. I get quite a bit of blog spam, most of which is caught by Akismet. Occasionally, though, there’s spam which isn’t caught by the filter and ends up coming to me for approval.
Many of these are explanations of why email marketing is so awesome. Some of them are out and out laugh inducing. One of my favorites, and the inspiration for this post.

Read More

Emailpocalypse

Apparently emailpocalypse is coming on Monday. That’s when Facebook is going to release their email platform (the one no one knows anything about) and it’s going to DESTROY EMAIL MARKETING AS WE KNOW IT.
Are you ready?
I think my favorite doom and gloom scenario is: Facebook will throw out the book on email deliverability because it will likely be the first mass-user email platform that is whitelist-based. In other words, you will NOT be able to send to a user unless they have given you explicit permission to do so.
THE HORRORS! Marketers are going to have to get PERMISSION TO SEND EMAIL. OH NOES! The SKY! It is falling! Recipients are going to have to actually invite marketers in! They can’t just take permission, they have to be granted it.
Oddly enough, a lot of the folks who are having conniptions are also people who have been preaching permission for years. Really, if they’re already getting explicit permission, then this is no different. It’s just an email platform.
And even if Titan is somehow a total game changer and is going to require explicit permission, it’s not going to destroy email marketing. Everyone who has a facebook account already has another email account. Marketers who can’t get explicit permission to mail to the facebook account can certainly keep sending “permission” email to their other email accounts.

Read More