CRM - January 2009 - (Page 38) EMAIL MARKETING retailers in the study used a mix of HTML text and images and only 63 percent “adequately or extensively” used features known as “alt tags”—text descriptions of images that appear when the picture doesn’t show or when you mouse over it. Since those are the two best techniques against imageblocking environments, experts say these numbers are not nearly as high as they should be. Upon closer inspection, EEC researchers found that 23 percent of retailers sent emails with images that were “completely unintelligible.” The remaining 77 percent exhibited “significant variations in clarity.” What’s more, 51 percent of respondents to the Habeas report felt that an email is “definitely/probably spam” if the images don’t show. The study also included results from a survey of 472 marketing executives regarding their use of email images. Only 47 percent said they designed emails with image suppression in mind. For many others, the delay to action is surprising given evidence that such changes have exhibited significant returns. The study found that of the 38 percent who tested and made the necessary changes to their emails, 32 percent have seen an increase in both open and clickthrough rates and 17 percent saw an increase in conversions. One extremely beneficial practice that Daniels says isn’t widespread is the use of clickthrough data. This can not only help marketers determine what part of the email campaign is getting read, if at all, but also to segment users based on these behaviors. Only about 40 percent of marketers report using this data, Daniels says—a fact he finds somewhat bewildering. “That’s the first clue you can use to see if these people are still alive. If people haven’t clicked, you can try ‘win-back’ campaigns, [or] survey sweepstakes [to] see if there’s a pulse.” If there’s no bite at the end of the line, remove these individuals from your list—save yourself some money and protect your credibility. JupiterResearch recommends removing subscribers after 10 months of inactivity. Some are even more finicky: During a recent Web event, Huw Griffiths, director of marketing at communications provider Protus, said that he scans his email list every six months. He removes anyone who hasn’t clicked or shown engagement, even if the emails were opened—to him, that’s not a prospect. Global trademark solutions provider Thomson CompuMark isn’t as quick to throw in the towel. Recipients who haven’t opened five consecutive emails will receive a re-optin email. Only if there’s still no response does Thomson CompuMark begin “actively querying,” explains Dave Wieneke, the company’s interactive marketing manager. Staffers then look for patterns to detect potential filtering, and make follow-up calls to confirm if the subscriber should continue to receive 38 CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT | JANUARY 2009 updates. Even those who don’t have a further need for trademark research appreciate the personal attention. “Every large emailer at some point in time will be blacklisted even if they follow all the best practices.” ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY Everyone wants to restore the legitimacy and power of email as a communication channel. Vendors provide email services that range from hygiene and correction (FreshAddress), to deliverability (Return Path), to ESPs (StrongMail Systems, Acxiom Digital), to marketing automation solutions that manage email among other channels (Unica, Marketo). The market is slowly consolidating, as companies with complementary services unite. FreshAddress acquired Return Path’s email change-of-address business late last October; Return Path acquired Habeas last August; and various database companies acquired email messaging vendors—YesMail was acquired by InfoGroup (formerly InfoUSA) in 2003, CheetahMail by Experian in 2004, and Digital Impact by Acxiom in 2005. Perhaps the only thing that enjoys a consensus vote is the Federal Trade Commission’s CAN-SPAM Act. Other than that, Mullen says, “there are differing opinions over best practices that relate to everything under the sun.” That is precisely why, she says, she was motivated to start the EEC nearly three years ago. “It was very frustrating for me as a marketer to know whose best practices were the best,” she says. “MarketingSherpa will come out and say, ‘This is how you should approach your subject lines and landing pages,’ which would directly conflict with a report ExactTarget came out with.” Some initiatives ultimately favor converging best practices. Daniels organized the Email Measurement Accuracy Coalition in 2007, where members of the various groups convened to “establish a consistent methodology and framework for the accurate calculation of email delivery, in order to inform the computation of critical email marketing metrics,” Daniels wrote then, referring to open, clickthrough, and conversion rates. Nevertheless, as much as it’s a team effort, many are still excited to play a role in this growing market. “Unfortunately—or fortunately—there’s a heck of a lot of money to be made in email consulting over what best practices really are,” Mullen says. “So a lot of [ESPs] don’t necessarily agree that they want to change their methodology and want everyone to adopt the same thing because that in turn means that services are needed less.” But, she says, consistency doesn’t have to come at the cost of capitalizing on email. Quite the contrary. “I think that, if we all agree on some basics, that helps the industry move forward.” Contact Assistant Editor Jessica Tsai at jtsai@destinationCRM.com. www.destinationCRM.com http://www.destinationCRM.com
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of CRM - January 2009 CRM - January 2009 Contents Front Office Feedback Reality Check Customer Centricity The Tipping Point The Shots Heard ’Round the World 30,000-Foot Views Of the Cloud Stuffing the Ballot Box— With Complaints The Marketing Line for ’09 CRM on Twitter Technology Helps Insurance Weather the Storm Required Reading The Google-ization of CRM The Feedback Funnel Email: What’s Inside? Shake Your Moneymakers Lead Sweet Lead Incentives at the Speed of Lightpath Sales Contentment for Content Management A Worthwhile Excursion Into Call Recording Secret of My Success Re:Tooling Connect Pint of View CRM - January 2009 CRM - January 2009 - CRM - January 2009 (Page Cover1) CRM - January 2009 - CRM - January 2009 (Page Cover2) CRM - January 2009 - Contents (Page 3) CRM - January 2009 - Contents (Page 4) CRM - January 2009 - Contents (Page 5) CRM - January 2009 - Front Office (Page 6) CRM - January 2009 - Front Office (Page 7) CRM - January 2009 - Feedback (Page 8) CRM - January 2009 - Feedback (Page 9) CRM - January 2009 - Reality Check (Page 10) CRM - January 2009 - Reality Check (Page 11) CRM - January 2009 - Customer Centricity (Page 12) CRM - January 2009 - Customer Centricity (Page 13) CRM - January 2009 - The Tipping Point (Page 14) CRM - January 2009 - The Tipping Point (Page 15) CRM - January 2009 - The Shots Heard ’Round the World (Page 16) CRM - January 2009 - 30,000-Foot Views Of the Cloud (Page 17) CRM - January 2009 - Stuffing the Ballot Box— With Complaints (Page 18) CRM - January 2009 - CRM on Twitter (Page 19) CRM - January 2009 - Technology Helps Insurance Weather the Storm (Page 20) CRM - January 2009 - Required Reading (Page 21) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page 22) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page 23) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page 24) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page 25) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page 26) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS1) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS2) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS3) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS4) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS5) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS6) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS7) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS8) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS9) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS10) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS11) CRM - January 2009 - The Google-ization of CRM (Page BPS12) CRM - January 2009 - The Feedback Funnel (Page 27) CRM - January 2009 - The Feedback Funnel (Page 28) CRM - January 2009 - The Feedback Funnel (Page 29) CRM - January 2009 - The Feedback Funnel (Page 30) CRM - January 2009 - The Feedback Funnel (Page 31) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 32) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 33) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 34) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 35) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 36) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 37) CRM - January 2009 - Email: What’s Inside? (Page 38) CRM - January 2009 - Shake Your Moneymakers (Page 39) CRM - January 2009 - Shake Your Moneymakers (Page 40) CRM - January 2009 - Shake Your Moneymakers (Page 41) CRM - January 2009 - Shake Your Moneymakers (Page 42) CRM - January 2009 - Incentives at the Speed of Lightpath (Page 43) CRM - January 2009 - Sales Contentment for Content Management (Page 44) CRM - January 2009 - A Worthwhile Excursion Into Call Recording (Page 45) CRM - January 2009 - Secret of My Success (Page 46) CRM - January 2009 - Re:Tooling (Page 47) CRM - January 2009 - Connect (Page 48) CRM - January 2009 - Connect (Page 49) CRM - January 2009 - Pint of View (Page 50) CRM - January 2009 - Pint of View (Page Cover3) CRM - January 2009 - Pint of View (Page Cover4)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.