Six months or out

Mickey Chandler has a great post up about Triage vs. Planning. Where he talks about the decisions you make differ depending on the context.
It’s a good read, and I strongly encourage everyone to go give it a look.
But his post led me to a post by Andrew Kordek at Trendline where he claims that there is an industry rule of thumb that says 6 months is the rule of thumb to define an inactive.
Wait, What?
I know there’s a huge amount of controversy in the email space about whether or not you should purge inactive addresses. I know there are some very vocal people who think that removing inactive addresses is tantamount to marketing suicide. But where did 6 months come from? Who made it an industry standard?
If we don’t know where the standard came from, if we don’t know why we’re doing it then what kind of mickey mouse industry are we running here?
There is a lot about email marketing that is empirical. You poke the black box on one side and see what happens on the other. The problem with that is, that we can “discover” a lot of effects that aren’t real, but somehow turn into “you must do this!”
I have no doubt there are times when a 6 month expiry is a good idea. A number of my clients over the last few years use a much, much shorter time because that’s what works for them. I also know there are times when longer expiry times are a good idea, too.
It’s really important that when you’re making decisions about your email marketing program that you don’t mindlessly apply “standards” to what you’re doing. Think about the practical effects of your decisions and put them in context with your overall business plan.
To do otherwise is to kneecap your email marketing program.

Are you ready for the next attack?
Links Sept 29, 2011

Related Posts

Who's your market?

A great post by the always insightful Mark Brownlow. Why Value Matters
I initially posted this because I found his illustrations very amusing. But then I thought about a number of conversations I had last week. Many of us in the email marketing arena can’t think like our recipients. We just don’t.
I think, sometimes, our inability to see email except as marketing can hamper our ability to connect with users. We spend so much time analyzing email we don’t always remember that it’s a tool. That there is an actual person at the other end of the transaction.
Marketers measure email campaigns primarily by dollars. And maybe there’s no other way to measure them. But, I can’t help but think that maybe we’re missing something.
And I think Mark may have hit that particular bullseye.

Read More

Skywriting to market email?

I’m so busy today getting caught up from the whirlwind of cousins this week. Yesterday, we took them to SF to do some touristy stuff. While sitting outside having some food and a drink, we noticed a ton of people staring up into the sky.
Livingsocial had hired some (very talented pilots) to do dot matrix skywriting as advertising.
Skywriting for living social It was quite impressive, actually. Mostly because the pilots were so technically precise, but also because they were conveying useful information in short phrases.
Besides the “Livingsocial loves you” shown here, we also saw deals and even a URL at one point. There was enough breeze over the bay that messages didn’t hang around long (the blur going from top left to bottom right is writing from the pass about 5 minutes earlier). But it was eye catching and there were tons of people taking photos.
It would be interesting to hear how effective a campaign this is. Does Livingsocial see signups as a result of skywriting? Or is this just general brand awareness on their part?
As an aside, the cousins said they received emails from both Livingsocial and Groupon, but that Groupon just sent so much mail it was getting annoying.

Read More

Data Integrity, part 2

Yesterday I blogged about eROIs contention that consumers should not be wasting the time of lead gen companies by filling in fake data. There were lots of good comments on the post, and I strongly encourage you to go read them if you are interested in different perspectives on the data issue.
One of the arguments I was making is that people are only going to give accurate information if they trust the website that is collecting information. I do, strongly, believe this. I also believe very strongly that websites collecting information need to do so defensively. It is the only way you can get good information.
This ties in with an earlier post about a website that collects email addresses from any visitor, then turns around and submits those addresses to webforms. Hundreds of mailing lists have already been corrupted by this group. They are a prime reason companies must design address collection process defensively. There are people who do bad things, who will take an opportunity to harass senders and recipients. This company is not the first, nor will they be the last to commit such abuses.
Taking a stand against abusive companies and people may be useful, but that will not stop the abuse. It is much easier to design process that limits the amount of abuse. For lead gen, in particular, confirmed opt-in is one way to limit the amount of bad data collected. As a side effect, it also results in less blocked mail, fewer complaints and better delivery.

Read More