Relevancy vs. Frequency remains a frequent debate topic in email marketing. LivingSocial.com's Adam Lovallo, who heads user acquisition, says his company believes in a send-more-mail approach. Quite simply: if it were to send out 50% less mail, he thinks revenues would go down 50%.
He said he's "100% on the frequency band wagon" and his company might still have runway to send out more messages.
"I think it's primarily a frequency game, and we've actually been too conversative" on that front recently, he said.
Lovallo noted one reason more mail works for LivingSocial is that it has established the expectation with customers about message loads.
He added that he hopes the addition of third-party data and other tactics will help with efficiency, but he used the word "marginally."
HP's Daryl Nielson, worldwide email manager, was a fellow "more mail" proponent. He said recently a European office was focusing heavily on reaching an active audience, but that was only about 20% of an audience base it should be pursuing. Sending more is needed seomtimes "or you lose your audeince," Nielson said.
Separately, Nicole Delma, who works for the Huffington Post, says navigating the relevancy vs. frequency matter has a lot to do with brand perception. "If you mail more, there could be a detrimental effect," she said.