Ouch! Leading industry publication DM News (who publish iMarketingNews) just shot themselves in the foot. They’re renting their opt-in email list out to various vendors. This isn’t a mistake. The mistake is the “From” line on the messages. The message I just got said it was from “Edith Roman”.
This is a fairly common mistake these days, so let me clear it up. According to focus group results, up to 50% of email recipients look at the “from” line to decide whether or not they will open an email or delete it. If the “from” line is not from someone they remember asking to get email from, many will promptly assume that company is spamming them — even if it’s not officially spam. In the world of spam, everything is in the eye of the beholder.
When you rent a list, the “from” line should be the brand name or company name that the opt-in names will remember as the place or company they gave permission to email them from. Your only other choice — and this falls into the debatable grey area — is a brand name that’s really, really famous, so recipients would be inclined to trust and open email from that brand even though they can’t remember asking for that brand to email them personally.
In the case of this campaign, The smarter bet would have been to use a From line saying, “DM News.”
I just got a smart email campaign from Business 2.0! Why smart? I guess they’ve heard that a lot of business people these days assume anything HTML is junk mail and dispose of it accordingly. However, they wanted to be able to track their email campaign’s open rate, which you can’t do if you’re sending a plain text message. So, Business 2.0’s marketers did the best of both worlds. They sent an email letter that looks like plain text, but is actually HTML.
The campaign is in the form of a thank-you letter from the editor to the magazine’s readers. And I must say, although I know intellectually that it’s a mass email, I still felt an emotional impact from receiving something that looked personal — a regular typed note, vs. something with graphics and colors. Well done.
It loads a bit slow, but this PDF newsletter from e-subscription tech firm SandLot features a fun front-page article everyone selling subscriptions online will enjoy. The article briefly describes results of recent Fulcrum Analytics research into who’s most likely to buy content online, and what sort of content do they buy. (If you were rooting for young sports fans to win the jackpot, you’d be right on the money.)
http://www.sandlot.com/sandlotreview/SR-Jan2002.pdf
Lillian Vernon (the company, not the woman) tells me they are increasingly bullish on Web sales replacing catalog orders. After September 11, department stores were able to mark down their prices to reflect consumers’ newfound reluctance to spend. Since their holiday catalogs were all either being printed or in the mail, they didn’t have too much flexibility to change prices. What they decided to do was an e-mail marketing campaign to their opt-in list, offering 20% off retail on anything in the store. The conversion rate was 10 times the usual for an e-mail campaign. As the holidays drew nearer (and department stores cut prices further), they increased the offer to 25% off, with similarly stunning results. In case you live in a cave without a mailbox, Lillian Vernon has 8 catalogs with 24 million customers’ addresses.
They’re not yet collecting e-mail addresses from their phone order center — the next obvious step. They told me that when they did a three-day trial asking customers (to the phone center) for their e-mail addresses, 30% of callers had e-mail addresses, and 60% of those wanted to be contacted by e-mail (opt-in). Lillian Vernon, famous for personalized coasters, and other stuff you’d find at Grandma’s house, would not seem to be a particularly tech-savvy audience, so 30% sounds pretty good to me.
Per my Blog from a few months ago, eFax has begun to fight harder against fax spam. Today they announced a service, all eFax customers who receive faxes they suspect to be spam can report them to abuse@mail.efax.com.
Pesach Lattin, editor and publisher of the generally irreverant AdBumb newsletter for online media buyers and brokers, just sent out an emergency bulletin revealing that NextCard, one of the Web’s largest advertisers, has just been shut down by Federal regulators for “unsafe and unsound practices.” Please note: the practices that were unsound were not their advertising methods, but rather their financial practices.
What does it take to achieve online advertising greatness? (Or at least get a big gold star on your report card.)
When the producers of yesterday’s Online Advertising Summit in NYC, announced their Top 10 Online Ads of 2001 contest winners, I badgered the three judges to find out how they decided which campaigns were the best.
Shawn Gold, President/CSO eUniverse:
“- Considerations of metrics/ROI
– Integrated media consideration, where applicable. How did it make the total communications work harder.
– How it uses the medium in the creative. Is it interactive, is it viral, does it initiate an ongoing relationship?
-I also looked at the qualitative issues around the creative execution. Does it affect you emotionally, embody the brand values, etc.?
Edward Kim at Unilever:
“1) creativity
2) meeting brand goals/objectives
3) innovation
4) reaching the right audience in the right place”
Tim McHale of Tribal DDB:
“1. creative solution
2. sophistication of metrics/ROI
3. use of online in a rare business category
4. diversity of business application”
The winning ads were (in alpha order):
A.I. Web-marketing Campaign
Budweiser and O’Doul’s Advertising Campaign
IBM Innovations Campaign
Kellogg’s Corn Pops – Strange Animation
Microsoft Campaign: Windows XP Launch
Nexium – The New Purple Pill
Pepsi: Britney Spears-Oscar Campaign
Playboy.com/Jack Daniel’s Hef Mega Ad Campaign
Taco Bell / Xbox Campaign
Volvo “Road to the S60” Campaign
“I’ve had enough of this free web crap. When I was a kid, the only thing we got for free was a beating. So I want all you deadbeats to start buying the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS this week and I MEAN NOW!” says a letter from “Ed Anger” on the home page of famed supermarket tabloid Weekly World News this week. No it’s not a joke (although the copy is sure to give all online publishers a heartfelt chuckle), it’s a print subscription marketing campaign. Will it work? I’m contacting them now to find out.
P.S. Gotta love the whole film noire layout.
Lesson learned: I’ve gotten rid of the ability for visitors to post comments on this Blog because nobody ever used it. Instead, all of you continued to email me, lots and lots and lots. Which is not a bad thing. Just a learning thing. People would prefer to email their comments to another human being than to post them on a virtual bulletin board. At least ContentBiz people anyway.
Internet marketing consultant and speaker Philippa Gamse emailed in this to me from her computer just now while in a plane en route to Hawaii. (How cool is tech, huh?):
“I’m doing a lot of article submissions these days as part of my ‘get my name out’ campaign 😉 I also have articles on my website with a generic permission to publish as long as my copyright and byline is included. I’m definitely seeing good results from this.
However, my ISP recently received a spam complaint from a recipient of an e-zine that they alleged they’d never subscribed to. They used software (I think it was SpamCop) which generates complaints not only to the publisher, but to the ISP’s of all contributors and sponsors.
I’m not sure that I think this is fair – if we submit the article in good faith to what we believe is an opt-in newsletter, or if someone takes my article [from my site] with my generic permission, should I be responsible for any ensuing spam complaints? When we get the lawyers seriously involved in unsolicited e-mail suits, this could get serious.”
This is a very good point. If your content is syndicated for use in an emailed newsletter, does that mean you have to first check with the opt-in procedures of that publisher? What if someone picks up your headlines and sends those out without even telling you? Right now, and perhaps forever, you’ll be safe legally
because you’re not the list owner or sender. But that doesn’t mean a spamming newsletter using your content can’t hurt your brand name in the marketplace.
(BTW: Less you think I’m being over-the-top on this, in the past four days several more content owners have stepped forward with similar problems.)
