Social media is the next bandwagon every marketer is jumping on. All the ESPs and all the email marketing teams are creating "share your content" modules and integrating social into their
strategy mix. And now Twitter is the latest social media star. Everywhere you turn there is Twitter -- CNN, NASA, operating rooms, corporate home pages, and even the toilet (twitter.com/shwittering).
Twitter has been deemed the next revolution in one-to-one communication, giving the customer a voice and making the corporation "human," enabling real-time interaction.
Let's look
at some numbers:
Twitter had 18.2 million unique visitors in May 2009. (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/nielsen-news/twitter-grows-1444-over-last-year-time-on-site-up-175/ ) "5% of Twitter users account for 75% of all activity"
and "85.3% of all Twitter users post less than one update/day." (http://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/ ) 90% of Internet
users between 18 and 72 use email daily. (Feb. 2009 Pew Internet and American life project) 87% of consumers' online time is spent reading their emails. (David Daniels, Vice
President JupiterResearch, Dec. 2007).
advertisement
advertisement
60% admit to checking their personal email at work an average of three times a day. (AOL, 2007) So the majority of
Twitter activity is 5% of its users, that is 910,000 users, tweeting less than once a day. I don't think that constitutes a revolution in real-time dialogue. I don't think it even justifies
more than a casual mention in social media strategy. Yet it is the basis of many marketers' social media conversation.
Twitter's usage numbers are not putting a dent in numbers
like the usage statistics for email - 90% of Internet users spend 87% of their time online reading email! The interesting phenomenon is that billion-dollar corporations are jumping through hoops to
respond to tweets -- yet they are still OK auto-responding to emails with, "we will get back to you in 48 hours," or not responding at all. Responding to email should be your first social
media strategy.
What happens when customers respond to a commercial email?
I think email's most awesome capability is the reply button. This is what makes email a real-time
communication tool that enables true 1 to 1 communication. Yet most companies are still conducting email as a "zero to many" communication.
In 2007 BrightWave conducted a study
to see what happens when you reply to a commercial email message. Only six out of 41 replies were from actual customer service reps with helpful information (http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/16630.asp ). I decided to do a casual study on the messages in my inbox today, in 2009, to see if
the results have improved in two years. Of the dozen messages I replied to with a simple question, three received a response, two were instant auto-responders followed up with a real email from a real
person 24-48 hours later, one was an immediate reply from a human, and nine were just ignored, bounced or came back with "does not accept replies" auto-responders.
There is a
lesson to be learned here. There is limitless opportunity for real interaction with your customers sitting right there in your email database. What strategy do you have in place to react to responses
to your email campaigns? Is it the "noreply@bigcompany.com" reply-to address or the auto-responder stating "this address does not accept incoming messages?" Imagine seeing that
reply coming back to every @bigcompany tweet!
If you have jumped on the bandwagon and developed a strategy to react to Twitter, you can take that strategy and apply it to email. You can
route email campaign replies to a real inbox with a real person monitoring it and taking appropriate action. They can actually respond to the emails received. Granted, this won't be a public
interaction, so no one but you and the customer will see it happening, but you can be sure that people will tweet about actually getting a human response to an email sent to your company.