Less can be more and more can be more

The Wall Street Journal reports that some large retailers are scaling back their email marketing. Benefits of sending less mail include higher open rates, lower unsubscribe rates and an increase in sales.

Since cutting back its volume, Nicole Miller has seen the rate at which customers “unsubscribe”—or request to stop receiving emails—drop, and the percentage of recipients who open the emails has grown from 15% to 40%, […] the percentage of online sales that began with an email has grown to 17% from 10%.

Other retailers, however, see a benefit to increasing volume if the emails are customized to each individual user.

In 2010, Neiman began using customer data to tailor its emails. It uses online purchase history, in-store purchase history linked to its credit card, and online cookies that track behavior on its website to learn what brands, categories and types of deals customers favor. It can then target email about a Marc Jacobs launch to customers who tend to buy Marc Jacobs purses, for instance.
Open rates and click through rates have increased by 10% to 20% since the chain started customizing its emails, Mr. Shockey said. “We keep a close eye on unsubscribe rates,” he added. “If they were to climb, we would investigate.”

What I get out of this article is a lot of interesting market research data, but also confirmation that different markets tolerate and respond to different things. Some recipient groups are going to love daily emails. Some are going to burn out quickly at that frequency.
Successful email marketing is a lot more than just sending a pretty email with the right kind of text. It’s about sending to the right people at the right time. The days of batch and blast the same offer to the same file are not over, and probably never will be. But the days of them being the most effective way to monetize a customer list are drawing to a close.
 

Related Posts

Court rules blogger is not a journalist

Last week a federal judge ruled a blogger, Crystal Cox, was not a journalist and not subject to first amendment protections. I haven’t been following the case very closely, but was a little concerned about the precedent and the liability for people like me who blog.
Reading some of the articles on the case, though, I’m less worried. This isn’t a blogger making some statements. Instead, Ms. Cox acted more like a stalker and harasser than a reporter. The judge even concluded that had she been granted protection as a journalist it was unlikely she could prevail as there was little factual basis for her statements.
Others have done better summaries of the case and the effect and I encourage everyone to read them.
Seattle Weekly
New York Times
Ars Technica
Forbes

I also discourage folks from applying this ruling to all bloggers. It’s not clear she was doing anything journalistic. I did find it interesting that some of her techniques to ruin the lawyer’s search results were defined as Search Engine Optimization. I’ve long thought SEO was akin to spam: say something often enough in enough places and you start to dominate the conversation. Not because you have anything useful to say, but because no one can get an idea in otherwise.

Read More

Don't be Amelia

I have an adorable cat that I ‘taught’ that I would pet her if she tapped me on the arm or shoulder with her paw. It was cute for a while, but then she got more and more demanding. Eventually, she was clawing at my clothes and skin to get attention and petting.
It’s gotten to the point where I have to put a stop to it. She’s just getting too destructive to me and my clothing. So over the last two weeks I’ve been trying to only reward those touches that don’t involve claws and giving her a stern “NO CLAWS” when she does try to claw me.
As I was sitting here this afternoon, going through yet another round of NO CLAWS with her, I realized that my interactions with her were eerily similar to email marketing.
You see, Amelia started using her claws to get my attention because I didn’t always respond to her gentle taps. But claws hurt, and were a problem, so I would respond. This is exactly like marketers who don’t see a response to their email marketing campaigns and thus up the aggressiveness of those campaigns. More mail, more frequency, stronger offers, anything to get a response out of recipients.
Eventually, though, the recipient finally gets annoyed. The aggressive “taps” result in spam complaints. The sender has pushed the recipient from “it’s not so bad” to “make this sender stop bugging me.”
Email marketing is interruption marketing and there is only so much recipients will tolerate. And, trust me, few email marketers are as cute as my Amelia Cat.

Read More

Marketing or spamming?

A friend of mine sent me a copy of an email she received, asking if I’d ever heard of this particular sender. It seems a B2B lead generation company was sending her an email telling her AOL was blocking their mail and they had stopped delivery. All she needed to do was click a link to reactivate her subscription.
The mail copy and the website spends an awful lot of time talking about how their mail is accidentally blocked by ISPs and businesses.

Read More