A while back, in preparation for a facilitation role at ad:tech on an email panel, I read an  article on Mashable entitled “Why Your Email Inbox is Bringing Home the Bacon”.

The purpose of my research was to look at some areas for the email marketing companies/providers on the panel to discuss that may be impacting marketers use of the channel in their communication activities.

The essence of the Mashable article was that Spam isn’t wanted or liked yet Bacon (Bacn) – email that you have legitimately subscribed to: Groupon Deals; Facebook updates; LinkedIn updates; Google notifications and so on – is something people love.

The article referenced research provided by unsubscribe.com and suggested that 27,397,260,274 Bacn emails were sent every day.

27 billion of them!  Each day. All opt in.

This works out to 4 emails per account, per day. Not many really.

So why the fuss?

My contention is that even though people may really love Bacn, too much can be bad for you as a marketer.

And it seems that it’s a view that achieved a general consensus among the panel and resonated with the audience with nods and tweets acknowledging that many people were now indeed over indulging on “Bacn” email and beginning to get a little sick of it.

While the average quoted above of four per person per day seems insignificant (a throw away statistic) the reality is very different and masks a big issue facing email marketers.

Let’s consider my situation and you’ll see what I mean.

I saved every Bacn email I received over a week.

My definition for what went into the Bacn folder was:

• something I have subscribed to  • comes out regularly be that daily, multi per week, or weekly. They are rarely read as they’re saved for a time I can get to them. And a final filter was that I remembered subscribing to them (sort of).

My total for the week was 328. That is 46.8 per day. Ten times the average.

Artery – and inbox – clogging for sure.

As the cost of sending an email has become insignificant, now being in the cents or part thereof, its not likely that the company sending these “welcomed” email thinks “…these aren’t being opened, we may stop sending them…”

The point to this is that now direct marketers using the email channel have an even bigger hurdle to overcome.

How does the email we are about to send – one that we have so carefully crafted, that’s highly targeted, with a personalised and compelling offer, and simple call to action – how do we get it read and acted on?

The role of direct marketing strategy, and the actioning of test and learn programs where we consider headlines, offers, time of day and day of week of distribution, image versus text, frequency of contact, change in message depending on whether they’ve opened recent email all become even more important.

Proposition, message, offer, execution and timing – direct marketing fundamentals from years gone by – remain an absolute priority.

Your challenge as a truly effective and relevant direct marketer is to review your current email program and ask yourself a simple question: Are you contributing to the health of your customers, or are you clogging their inbox too?

 

<br />Infographic by- Shanghai Web Designers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU&feature=player_embedded

This post appeared on http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2011/06/agency.html

Maybe Agencies Should Be More Like Blue Chip Companies  

If you work in either an agency, consultancy or professional services firm, then you’ve likely seen an article or five over the past few years making the case for agencies to act more like start-ups. The logic goes something like this: start-ups are nimble and product focused. They embrace “cultures of code” and they build things. Start-ups move fast and adapt, and they celebrate experimentation and innovation. And some of the most famous start-ups are literally changing the way we live, work and play (see Facebook).

In the spirit of full disclosure, I once subscribed to this point of view but I do not any longer. Professional service firms like any industry are facing multiple challenges, from disruption generated in places like social media (anyone can be a publisher now) to the fact that there’s convergence making it less relevant to distinguish how different your firm approaches the areas you provide services in (is it advertising, marketing, PR, or other?). In many cases, the dollars being pursued are up for grabs.

First, let’s state that start-ups have their own issues. A very TINY percentage of them ever make it to a sustainable business model. Many start-ups are founded by ADD ridden entrepreneurs who build one, sell it for a modest price and move on to the next because that is what they do. Also, start-ups are in truth a commodity—there are thousands of them out there that are trying to be the next location based network just like the others before them trying to be the next Twitter and Facebook. Nobody talks about those.

Now let’s move on to agencies and or consultancies. Some have actually figured out (or at least are trying to figure out) how to reconcile products vs. services. A social media agency called Mr. Youth created a community-rewards type product called Crowdtap and it’s worth noting they even they call out the differences in the models

Back to agencies and perhaps business in general. A few weeks ago in London, I had a very stimulating conversation with an Edelman colleague who was talking about “corporate memory” or simply put, the connection between the knowledge which is retained in any organization between their employees & their work product. It hit me that this is not only a challenge for “client side” businesses, but for agencies it can be a complete nightmare. Many agencies are revolving doors, where high turnover rates are expected and planned for. However, like any other business—each time a professional services employee leaves a firm, they take their corporate memory with them. In my opinion this may be the number one issue that any business, especially the professional service industry faces as disruptions continue to enter the market place. My hypothesis here is that looking to the start-up world may not provide the inspiration agencies seek. In fact, the inspiration may lie in sustainable blue chip businesses who do a good job of retaining not only their most critical employees but the knowledge they amass as they spend their time with the company likely going from department to department. Having worked with several significant brands/companies over the years you can spot these individuals—they’ve put in their time and deeply understand the culture, values and mission of the company. They’ve provided value over the years and been there through good and bad times.

Whenever I meet an Edelman collegue who has been with the firm over 5 or 10+ years—(and there are many) I always ask them the same question. What keeps you here? The answer is usually consistent:

The people
The culture
The work

Perhaps agencies need to look not to the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world but to the sustainable business models that have withstood the test of time and are smart enough to invest in and keep their “corporate memory” intact. It just might be that unless you build the next Facebook or Google, that start-up culture is overrated and today’s “empty suit” is actually an empty hoodie.