Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
“Next is planning to save £8m by not sending out glossy catalogues to shoppers who don’t want them” said The Telegraph on Good Friday. The money freed up would be directed into digital, it stated.
Recent meetings with clients and prospects has raised this issue to the top of my mind: who exactly is responsible for deliverability?
And by ‘responsible’, who carries the can if it all goes wrong?
Relevance is the Holy Grail, not just for email marketers but for marketers in general. The word relevance has been over-used to the point of making it a cliché.
However, at the heart of every cliché is fact, and think about it for any length of time it quickly becomes clear that every tool, every tactic, every strategy we use to improve email results is purely focused at achieving one result – greater relevance.
Online Marketers spend huge sums on paid-for media, much of it driving orders from existing customers who also reside on the organisations email list.
There are enormous gains to be made by from investing in CRM via email for the long term.
Do you have a mobile optimised site? If the answer is no, then how long can you continue to ignore the lost opportunity as customer preferences shift? And are you interested in maximising the volume of customers who visit this site?
Optimising the Mobile Journey is no longer optional...
What is the key to relevance in email? Simple… it is knowing what the customer is interested in.
Whilst not wishing to be too prosaic, email marketing is the pursuit of relevance. Relevant emails get read and make money; irrelevant emails go into junk or worse still get unsubscribed (leading to a subsequent loss of lifetime value).
The art of good email is knowing what someone is interested in, and that applying this to all future email communications.
How marketers measure email is changing and will continue to change.
Where we used to look at open and click rates, today we are putting in place plans to measure email lifetime value. So what is going on?
I was reviewing results from a split creative test on a basket abandonment email recently (names removed to protect the successful) and it struck me how the methodology for measuring email results can, quite erroneously, determine how we use email marketing and develop marketing strategies.
So I thought I would combine the results here with my recommendations on how to measure email marketing.
It is frankly maddening when I hear marketers talk about how ‘valuable’ email is because it is ‘cheap’.
It says to me this marketer is likely to be banging out high frequency emails to produce orders without due consideration to the real value of email marketing in CRM terms.
RedEye’s latest Behavioural Email Benchmark Report shows that the number of online retailers employing a basket abandonment strategy has doubled from 7% to 14%.
So, I’ve asked the key guys at RedEye for their ideas about how to improve a basket abandonment email campaign. I got the fun of ranking them.
And in the style of Tony Blackburn, I’m counting down starting at number 10!
I've seen a lot of advice recently suggesting that 'recency is the key', and all basket abandonment emails should be sent immediately.
I find it quite depressing. Individuals giving this advice assume that all customers are the same. Segmentation, customer analysis, research and even good old fashioned ‘thought’ is ignored for the sake of a headline.
In translation, these vendors are screaming ‘Spam the lot of them immediately!!’
“You can’t use offers in Basket Abandonment emails because it trains customers to deliberately abandon”.
What tosh! All marketers know that offers improve conversion. To blandly state that you can’t use an offer to improve conversion on a basket abandonment campaign is at best a lazy excuse.
It seems most of the controversy is based on the typical ambiguity that seems to exist in many online rules and regulations. Because, let’s face it, the situation is meant to be led by public opinion, with the legislators supposedly following suit. The public want to be “protected” from evil online marketing spies, who are poised and ready to sell something at the first sign of interest.
Or do they?