| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSHowever, the industry still hasn't reached consensus on a number of fundamental precepts in email marketing. In these "debates," followers of each side often make compelling, even impassioned, arguments why their view should prevail.
I initially came up with a list of about eight disagreements, but narrowed it to three biggies due to space constraints. (I'm saving the biggest debate -- "permission is required" versus "CAN-SPAM doesn't require permission" or "reputation supersedes permission" -- for a future column.)
So, here is my list of three of the industry's biggest arguments:
1. Single vs. Double Opt-in: Most marketers will say they back permission, but they split over whether just collecting the email address (single opt-in) is enough or if the better approach is to confirm the subscription as well.
Single Opt-in (SOI) Argument: It builds bigger permission lists more quickly. You won't lose subscribers who don't confirm their addresses, either because the confirmation gets snagged in spam filters or because they simply never confirm. The bottom-line argument: bigger is better; why risk losing potential subscribers to spam filters and a potential change of heart?
Double Opt-in (DOI) Argument: Double (also frequently referred to as confirmed) opt-in typically yields fewer but better email addresses, because the confirmation process sifts out typing errors and malicious or deliberately incorrect addresses. Most ISPs recommend DOI/COI. A key benefit is the confirmation record should you need to prove to an ISP that an angry subscriber actually did opt in. Quality is the key goal. Your list will be cleaner and comprised of people that, because they had to take an extra step, will likely be more responsive.
My Take: I'm a fan of the DOI/COI process because of the list quality, likely better deliverability and response rates and permission record. Also, although I've not seen any specific research, I'm not convinced that DOI/COI yields a smaller list. A single opt-in process will lose subscribers when the first email bounces from bad addresses, followed quickly by attrition in the first month or so from higher unsubscribe, spam complaint and inactive rates.
2. Checked vs. Unchecked Boxes: Some marketers utilize forms with the email permission box already checked, meaning the person has to remove the check to avoid receiving email. Others use an unchecked box that requires an action (checking the box) and achieves a higher level of consent.
Pre-checked Argument: People who don't uncheck are still giving their permission, provided the box is not hidden or disguised. Pre-checked boxes are not illegal, and you will have a much larger list over using an unchecked box. Additionally, many marketers say that they are under pressure to grow their list to meet sales and acquisition cost-per-subscriber goals. When combined with growing list churn, checked seems to be the only option.
Unchecked Argument: Requiring subscribers to check a box meets CAN-SPAM requirements for affirmative consent, where checked boxes don't. As with DOI/COI, requiring an affirmative action assures you that the subscription is intentional and leads to a higher quality, more responsive list. An unchecked approach will also lead to less list churn through lower unsubscribe and spam complaint rates. Finally, some white lists and accreditation services do not allow the use of pre-checked boxes.
My Take: I prefer unchecked boxes because they require a positive action, and again, as with double opt-in, give you a higher-quality list. Pre-checked boxes can contribute to potential delivery problems including a likely higher spam complaint rate. But I certainly feel for those marketers who are under pressure from bosses to grow their lists at all costs - and who are unable to convince them of the better way.
3. Remove vs. Retain Non-responders: All email lists contain a significant and growing percentage of inactive subscribers, typically defined as those who don't open or click on your email messages for some period of time appropriate for your business (e.g., 12 or 18 months). In fact, as I outlined in an earlier column, most email lists will be comprised of one-third to two-thirds or more inactives. The debate is over whether to keep mailing to these people in hibernation, or remove them and focus your efforts on the actives and likely reap better deliverability.
Removers' Argument: However affordable email is, sending to thousands or millions of non-responders is not free. And, as ISPs increasingly filter or block messages that have a high concentration of inactive addresses, why risk reduced delivery in the chance that a handful of people might suddenly reawaken after a few years? Removing inactives also enables you to have a better picture of email performance and allocate greater resources to increasing response rates from those who are active.
Retainers' Argument: The inactive subscribers requested your email at one time. If your purchasing cycle is long, it's not unusual to have people not buy more often than once or twice every few years or more. Email is relatively inexpensive, so why not continue mailing in the chance that someone will take an action? As long as they don't report you for spamming, and the address doesn't bounce, you waste the money you spent on acquisition if you delete these subscribers without waiting for the unsubscribe.
My Take: I line up with the removers, in part because of the wasted-resource issue, but also to avoid potential deliverability problems from sending repeatedly to addresses an ISP might have identified as inactive. I also prefer working with a list of actives and having a more accurate sense of actual list performance. But I also prefer to remove inactives gradually and only after implementing a program to reactivate non-responders. In many cases, the "inactive" subscriber might really be a potential high-value customer; it is just that your email program is really crappy.
Where do you line up on these and other "industry disagreements?" Please share your favorite disagreement or argument in the comments section below.
Until next time, take it up a notch!
Meet Loren McDonald at Email Insider Summit Utah!
Loren McDonald will be there speaking during "Looking Past Email Measurement" on December 09 at 9:45 AM. Top executives will be there. Will you?
Register today and save.
Register today and save.
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
I believe there really are no right and wrong answers - I always let the data make the call. In general, I'd say that most on the agency side feel comfortable with the more conservative practices (double-opt-in/unchecked/remove), but we will also recommend testing - every program is different. I have clients on both sides of the fence on all of the issues above.
I will say that in my experience, depending on the specific metrics for success, the pre-checked box usually wins the test.
I also agree with Bob on not discounting the value of email as a vehicle for stewarding the brand. That said, I do like to test treating inactives differently in an effort to drive increased engagement (as Loren suggests), and usually end up suppressing some segments, depending on business objectives.
n.
Unfortunately, I think you are correct, in that many email marketers still do not understand the basics of deliverability. As I mention in my previous column on "Lies" - http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/email_insider/?p=691 - deliverability is 98% the responsibility of marketers - not ESPs, IT or anyone else.
The sooner more marketers understand this, rather than blaming others or assuming it is someone else's responsibility, then the sooner decisions around things such as single/double opt-in, pre/unchecked boxes, removing inactives, etc.- will take on a different meaning.
Loren
It seems that the agency/supplier side is firmly in the double-opt-in/unchecked/remove camp. But that, as Frances writes, it's an uphill battle that needs to be fought over and over.
The question is, why does the battle have to be fought over and over? Why doesn't everyone just line up and do the above? Are clients just that thick (I used to be on the supplier side - I know what gets said behind clients backs) that they continue to do things that harm their business?
The answer is that - for all of the reporting our e-mail systems can give - we just don't know enough about consumer's behaviors to risk NOT sending the e-mail. At one time or another, a person's email address comes into a system. If they get tired, they'll opt out. If they don't opt out, there's a reason - and we don't know enough about that reason to make artificial choices for the consumer.
As far as deliverability issues, my experience is that those are largely overblown - as long as you are quickly processing your bounce and unsub files. Once Live Nation managed those properly - and switched to a dedicated IP and unique sending domain - our deliverability problems almost completely disappeared.
Good debate, though!
Bob, Arthur, et al - I and Silverpop are obviously big believers in email as a brand awareness vehicle (Bill Nussey, our CEO wrote an entire chapter on Email Brand Value in his book The Quiet Revolution in Email Marketing - http://www.quietrevolutioninemail.com) and the benefits of multi-channel marketing. I get an email, but don't act, but then a day later I receive a catalog, see an ad on TV, hear one on the radio, see a print ad, etc. - and the combination motivates to take an action or make a purchase. I get it.
And as I mentioned, I recommend a gradual and strategic approach to removing people - only after a concerted effort to reactivate them. For the concert ticket business or auto industry, it absolutely might make sense to keep inactives on your list because they may not make a purchase for 3 or 5 years.
But the problem today is that this ignores the deliverability ecosystem. As ISPs increasingly incorporate response rates and level of individual activity into their filtering algorithm, retaining too many people who are truly inactive addresses, can lead to a very real impact on delivery rates.
So I understand the brand aspect and business case, but marketers have to weigh this approach with potential negative impact on deliverability.
Loren
As an agency, adhering to and maintaining best practices is often an uphill battle (that has to be fought over and over again with each new client).
While sometimes exhausting, it's 100% worth it when the results are in: - better response rates, conversion rates and ROI - increased trust and brand affinity - better deliverability - lower overall list management costs and list churn rates
I'm looking forward to your "Permission is required v. CAN-SPAM doesn’t require permission" column!
One of the interesting things about our business is that - for the most part - email cannot actually make a sale happen. E-mail is a prompt that gets people to think of the brand/offer, making the opportunity to purchase come to light. The actual transaction happens somewhere else. Many times that somewhere else is not in a system that can be measured by the email system. Just because people don't click to buy (and get captured by your measurement systems) the way you want them to does not mean they will not purchase.
We have a lot of customers who never buy via e-mail. But those people buy a lot of product from us. In fact, they're among some of our highest value customers. Email serves as an important brand reminder. If you think you're paying to much for sending to inactives, then work out a new price structure with your ISP. Or find a new ISP...
As a consumer I don't like being pestered. But I don't mind being reminded.
James Webb Young, one of the great ad writers of the last century and author of "A Technique for Producing Ideas" which is still in print 50 years after his death says that one of the 5 important functions of advertising is to remind people you're there and what you stand for.
Email, and the catalogs that clog my mailbox, perform that function in some small way even when they're not opened. In fact I depend on their appearance so that my addled brain doesn't have to remember where to get the gizmo I need when I need it.
Sometimes make small purchases to keep that kind of information coming. Some of them I think of as subscriptions to info sources I may need down the line. I sleep peacefully at night knowing that I'll be getting another email or catalog from Cyberguys or Griot's Garage in spite of the fact that I haven't opened the last one. And electronic delivery works best for me because I don't have all that paper lying around.
Permission is a helpful filter but experience has taught me that opting out usually only serves to change the cadence.
Fundamentally, it seems you recognize the brand and deliverabilty degradation of sending emails to non-active subscribers. For many marketers, deliverability is an issue of "someone else" - namely, their ESP. So they typically won't choose tactics which help deliverability over the long term. Somewhat of a "Tragedy of the Commons" archetype.
I still don't grasp why marketers don't understand the brand degradation from sending emails to people who are not engaged. It seems that they *must* receive emails from other marketers that they consider to be spam like, yet they don't commonly make the connection to the emails that they send. Is there a study that shows how badly a marketer can damage their brand via sending either irrelevant emails or emails to dis-engaged subscribers?