It’s no secret that the buy side (marketers, ad agencies, etc) receive a tremendous number of “cold emails” from the sell side (publishers, tech vendors, etc) looking to engage in
business. A few digital buyers have told me they will see 50 to 100 on a given day.
It has gotten to the point where buy-side players have resorted to working with email addresses that were
created specifically to dodge dreaded vendor email solicitations. For example, a digital marketing exec at an automotive brand ditched the corporate nomenclature (first.last@company.com) for a
combination of initials plus numbers (abc007@company.com. Has it really come to this?
I think we can all agree that there is significant value in automation. However, it becomes a
curse when people start resorting to sneaky email formats to relieve inbox overload. It’s just too easy for a digital neophyte to blast a list of digital executives with soulless
“we stack ‘em deep and sell ‘em cheap” messaging.
advertisement
advertisement
This is where I think the folks at LinkedIn might just be onto something with their “InMail”
feature. A user is allowed 10, 25, or 50 outreach emails per month based on their subscription (we’ll leave the debate over whether the numbers or the platform itself are ideal, it’s
the concept that is compelling).
If the industry (or a buyer-seller platform) were to inform each seller that they carried a limited number of prospecting emails per day, no doubt they would
be much more judicious in outreach, making sure to highlight specific ways their media/tech adds value for a given brand or client (surely sales execs and automated email pundits have
indigestion at the thought of this scenario, but let’s continue to weigh benefits).
Consider the inbox of agencies/advertisers for a moment. If they received fewer of those mindless,
trolling-the-waters, cookie-cutter emails, then it would seem reasonable they could spend more time reviewing the intelligent “cold emails” as well as closer review of A+ proposals.
And suppose, instead of requesting countless proposals (some of which are given just to appease the seller hounds -- sad, but true!) and never indicating why sellers didn’t win the business,
buyers are now required to provide constructive feedback to those who don’t make the cut.
This is a work in progress, but here’s a rough snapshot of a Web 4.0 buyer/seller
communication platform:
Sellers:
- Limited # of emails sent per day
- Craft intelligent, custom messaging for sellers
- Bonus email earned for each positive
response received (minus 10 for each email with the wrong company name, recipient name, or misspelling of either)
Buyers:
- Higher read rate and response rate to vendor
inquiries
- More time to evaluate introductions and proposals from qualified vendors
- Provide vendors with feedback to improve product, features, alignment, etc.
Even
if the above platform scenario is a stretch, inboxes are being flooded, and things will only get worse given the proliferation of ad tech, digital publishers, and automation tools in-market.
Standards and some type of quality control would go a long way, mitigating self-medication on the sales side as well as the need for cloak-and-dagger email formats on the buy side.
Do you
think?