• by Loren McDonald , Op-Ed Contributor, September 10, 2009

A bunch of self-proclaimed "email snobs" (myself included) have been heating up the Twitterverse, email discussion lists and the blogosphere with a debate over the merits (or lack of them) of the language we use as email-marketing practitioners.

 

Some of us believe that seemingly harmless words, like "blast" to describe deploying an email message or campaign, or "buy" to describe list rental, are symptoms of marketer ignorance, both accidental and intentional. Use of these words contribute to email marketing not moving forward and getting the full respect it deserves as a premier customer communications channel.

Others say efforts to obliterate these words from the marketer's lexicon waste everybody's time on inconsequential matters and distract us from the real issues we have to deal with in email marketing.

"It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear." That's the subtitle to "Words That Work," a book by Frank Luntz, the communications consultant and former Republican political advisor. This tagline sums up why I disagree with those who say we should just get over ourselves and not fuss about words like "blast" and "buy."

If we want to help the email marketing industry continue to grow in channel recognition, consumer value and ROI, we need to change the words we use to describe what we do.

In the dialogue around this topic, I've heard several experienced marketers say that when they say "blast," for example, they know they're talking about a highly targeted, gold-standard email campaign.

That's fine for them. Unfortunately, what most people hear is "batch and blast," especially if they're new to email marketing or don't understand what it takes to be relevant. "Simply upload a list, add the creative, push 'send' and make money."

Using pejorative language simply encourages the idea that the status quo is acceptable and perpetuates misguided practices.

Are You Proud to be an "Email Blaster"?

Do you refer to yourself as an "email blaster?" If so, I'm guessing that if you were instead in the PR industry you'd also cheerfully refer to yourself as a PR "flack." Many PR people have no problem with the term, as many people in email marketing have no problem with terms like "blast."

However, the PR profession, like the email industry, has long had an image problem (oh, the irony). As a former PR professional, I think "flack" and the analogous terms in email such as "blast" only perpetuate the negative industry stereotypes.

As email marketers, we frequently get stereotyped as spammers who send floods of email whether they're relevant or wanted. When we refer to what we do as "spamming" (I've heard this many times from marketers) or "blasting" our customers, we devalue the very channel over which we struggle with the C-suite for budget, resources, and even respect.

"It's the Industry, Stupid"

Some have asked: What does any of this have to do with making more money from the email marketing channel?

From my industry perspective, everything.

The biggest threat to the future of email marketing as a channel and industry is not Facebook, Twitter, blogs or SMS. It is us. While high-volume spam is still a problem, for most of us the few "spam" emails that get through our filters and into the inbox have become only a minor irritation.

The bigger annoyance is the flood of irrelevant emails coming into our inboxes at increasing frequency from trusted brands. I'll refrain from using the "B" word, but this pound-pound-pound approach should be everyone's biggest fear.

The continued growth and adoption of email marketing is great for email-related vendors and agencies, but it may also be its eventual downfall. Unless we as an industry can get the majority of marketers to practice prudent and relevant email marketing, consumers will gradually run from this channel to more relevant alternatives.

The biggest reason that email marketing is not fully living up to its potential as a channel is that it is easy to do, but tough to do well. To deliver highly relevant emails to subscribers requires more budget, resources and expertise. I've frequently referred to this issue as the "ROI/Resource Imbalance": email's ROI is high, but most companies don't allocate resources accordingly.

If we as industry practitioners don't use the right terms to convey the true value and strategic role of email marketing, how do we expect our bosses to get it? How do we plan to persuade newbies to our industry that buying CD-ROMs of email addresses is simply unacceptable?

The language we use is the foundation of industry discourse and how we educate and shape actual practices. Let's agree on a common set of terms that position our industry where it rightfully belongs: as perhaps the highest value communications channel available to marketers.

I encourage readers to get in on this conversation. Post your comments below and have your say on Twitter (hashtag #emailsnob) and your blogs.

Until next time, take it up a notch -- and refrain from using the "B" words!