October 2, 2013
Creating E-mail Campaigns That Work
Through a special arrangement, presented here for discussion is a summary of a current article from MarketingCharts, a Watershed Publishing publication providing up-to-to-minute data and research to marketers.
E-mail practices — from signup to unsubscribe — have significantly changed over the past five years reports Return Path, an e-mail marketing solution, in a recent study. Brands are asking for less information at sign-up, are more commonly starting their relationships with a welcome e-mail (but less frequently with an offer), and are making the unsubscribe process easier. But which of these practices appear to be working for brands today?
Return Path set out to answer this question by analyzing the results for a variety of practices employed by brands and comparing them against the performance of brands not employing those practices.
Requisite — and very important — disclaimers apply here: these results are not necessarily prescriptive, and could very well differ by list. Identifying and comparing single variables in e-mail practices may also ignore the impact of other variables, such as sender reputation.
Nevertheless, the results can provide a launching point for brands to conduct their own testing. For readers wanting some quick hits: brands sending e-mails less than weekly tended to see better inbox placement, read and complaint rates than those sending more frequently, while those sending personalized messages fared worse in each metric than those who did not.
Here are the individual practices and related results (each variable is a comparison of results for brands employing the component against those not employing it):
- Collect only e-mail at signup: slightly better inbox placement and complaint rates; no difference in read rates;
- Collect more than name and zip: worse inbox placement and complaint rates; no difference in read rates;
- Require confirmed opt-in: slightly better inbox and read rates; sharply better (i.e., lower) complaint rate;
- Send welcome message: no difference in inbox and complaint rates; better read rates;
- Begin regular sending within a week: no difference in inbox placement or read rates; sharply better complaint rate;
- Open with an offer: better inbox placement rate; slightly better read rate; slightly worse complaint rate;
- Personalize messages: sharply worse inbox placement rate; worse read and complaint rates;
- Send more than weekly: worse inbox placement rate; no difference in read rate; better complaint rate;
- Send weekly: better inbox placement rate; no difference in read rate; worse complaint rate;
- Send less than weekly: sharply better inbox placement rate; better read rate; and slightly better complaint rate; and
- Include whitelisting reminder: slightly worse inbox placement rate; no difference in read rate; better complaint rate.
Following are some highlights regarding how e-mail practices have changed from 2008:
- One-third of the tracked brands now require just an e-mail address at signup, up from 20 percent in 2008;
- Four-fifths of the brands now send welcome messages, double the percentage from 2008;
- Just 39 percent included an offer in their first message this year, down from 65 percent in 2008;
- A quarter of brands now offer opt-down alternatives to unsubscribes, up from just 3 percent in 2008.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are you surprised by any of the study results detailed in the article? Which should brands and retailers take most seriously?
Poll
I’m actually kind of surprised – until I think about it – about the low first message offer rate.
As far as what is most serious, my vote goes to ease of opt out and effective, but not overwhelming, frequency.
Brands and retailers should pay attention to complaint rates and do something to prevent them. They are attached to the brand or retailer and are difficult to detach.
Consumers (and that’s all of us) are bombarded with emails. To stand out and be noticed is one huge challenge. To stand out and be noticed in a positive light is an even greater challenge.
If your brand crosses the line into the darkness associated with mail I’d rather not receive and mail that turns me off so that I want nothing to do with that brand or retailer, the road back – even to neutral – is arduous if not impossible.
Weekly? WEEKLY?!?! (Or even more than that.) Except maybe for a supermarket, no one patronizes a retailer that often, so there’s no need for e-mails to be that frequent. If they can’t target more specifically – and by implication less frequently – then they’re essentially spam.
The contradictory nature of the results (e.g., send weekly, send less than weekly, send more than weekly) is surprising at first glance. However, the results will depend upon the company, the consumers, and the message, so it is not surprising, really. The results do not provide enough detail to be very helpful. I agree with Ryan; making the opt out process easy is extremely important.
As both a person who uses email to communicate with customers and also a customer, I found the information not only interesting but useful.
1. Frequency is good, but not too often. Fine line.
2. Offers pull but people don’t; sellers are not using them.
3. Big one: Personalization does not seem to have any real value.
Return on investment is the support and justification for e-mail campaigns. United States Postal Service advertisement campaigns are designed and rolled out to get a 1 – 1.5% sales response which if purchased, were always worth the money. Four color advertisement on any size single page worked the best, especially when sent without an envelope. The same is true for e-mail campaigns, hence we have spam and pop-ups that cost nothing to send and get the same or better ROI.
This annoyance is not going away it is going to evolve. Like the use of watermarks in place of pop-us and the use of customer service responses and inquires in place of direct to consumer e-mails. And so on and so forth. More sales still means more jobs, even if the employment isn’t what it used to be.
Interesting study. I think much lies in how compelling email offers are from the brands. Low response comes from low value. Frequency is definitely a major issue, as no one wants to be inundated with spam. The key is to constantly and consistently analyze results, because shopper sentiment evolves. Also, ensure you have a team dedicated to driving a “pipeline” of new ideas to keep email campaigns fresh.
I would be interested to see how customers’ interaction with retailers online are shifting. I would assume that email is becoming less and less relevant as consumers interact with retailers and brands via Facebook, smart phone and tablet apps, Pinterest, Twitter, etc. email seems sooooo 2010…. Why bother except for those that want it?
Most of the results above show little change based on frequency and offers. This is due to the proliferation of email and offers across retailers – more and more retailers start their consumer conversation with offers and when that doesn’t work, they make even more offers.
The hopeful signs include welcome emails and reduced requirements to signup. Both of those tactics are the start of a personalized consumer conversation – the problem is that most email marketers do not fulfill that potential, resulting in a barrage of offers that are increasingly irrelevant.
Personalization has been shown to increase customer engagement, open rates and click-thrus. When that personalization includes content, the results are even stronger.
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
I’m actually kind of surprised – until I think about it – about the low first message offer rate.
As far as what is most serious, my vote goes to ease of opt out and effective, but not overwhelming, frequency.
Brands and retailers should pay attention to complaint rates and do something to prevent them. They are attached to the brand or retailer and are difficult to detach.
Consumers (and that’s all of us) are bombarded with emails. To stand out and be noticed is one huge challenge. To stand out and be noticed in a positive light is an even greater challenge.
If your brand crosses the line into the darkness associated with mail I’d rather not receive and mail that turns me off so that I want nothing to do with that brand or retailer, the road back – even to neutral – is arduous if not impossible.
Weekly? WEEKLY?!?! (Or even more than that.) Except maybe for a supermarket, no one patronizes a retailer that often, so there’s no need for e-mails to be that frequent. If they can’t target more specifically – and by implication less frequently – then they’re essentially spam.
The contradictory nature of the results (e.g., send weekly, send less than weekly, send more than weekly) is surprising at first glance. However, the results will depend upon the company, the consumers, and the message, so it is not surprising, really. The results do not provide enough detail to be very helpful. I agree with Ryan; making the opt out process easy is extremely important.
As both a person who uses email to communicate with customers and also a customer, I found the information not only interesting but useful.
1. Frequency is good, but not too often. Fine line.
2. Offers pull but people don’t; sellers are not using them.
3. Big one: Personalization does not seem to have any real value.
Return on investment is the support and justification for e-mail campaigns. United States Postal Service advertisement campaigns are designed and rolled out to get a 1 – 1.5% sales response which if purchased, were always worth the money. Four color advertisement on any size single page worked the best, especially when sent without an envelope. The same is true for e-mail campaigns, hence we have spam and pop-ups that cost nothing to send and get the same or better ROI.
This annoyance is not going away it is going to evolve. Like the use of watermarks in place of pop-us and the use of customer service responses and inquires in place of direct to consumer e-mails. And so on and so forth. More sales still means more jobs, even if the employment isn’t what it used to be.
Interesting study. I think much lies in how compelling email offers are from the brands. Low response comes from low value. Frequency is definitely a major issue, as no one wants to be inundated with spam. The key is to constantly and consistently analyze results, because shopper sentiment evolves. Also, ensure you have a team dedicated to driving a “pipeline” of new ideas to keep email campaigns fresh.
I would be interested to see how customers’ interaction with retailers online are shifting. I would assume that email is becoming less and less relevant as consumers interact with retailers and brands via Facebook, smart phone and tablet apps, Pinterest, Twitter, etc. email seems sooooo 2010…. Why bother except for those that want it?
Most of the results above show little change based on frequency and offers. This is due to the proliferation of email and offers across retailers – more and more retailers start their consumer conversation with offers and when that doesn’t work, they make even more offers.
The hopeful signs include welcome emails and reduced requirements to signup. Both of those tactics are the start of a personalized consumer conversation – the problem is that most email marketers do not fulfill that potential, resulting in a barrage of offers that are increasingly irrelevant.
Personalization has been shown to increase customer engagement, open rates and click-thrus. When that personalization includes content, the results are even stronger.