- Image via Wikipedia
There is a disconnect between marketers and consumers. No where is that more evident than in this article I found today on MediaPost. In that post, we see that disconnect display itself most clearly as a marketer attempts to channel a consumer. I’ve asked my dad, a fairly typical email user, respond so that we can see what a typical user thinks.
While he’s working on that, I want to give a couple of my own impressions.
First of all, I think that the attitude evidenced in this hypothetical message is flippant and disrespectful of the very people that it is supposed to be written for. Most users with whom I interact are thoughtful and know what they are doing as well as why they are doing it. I have yet to meet the person who has said anything even remotely resembling the following:
For all I know, I already gave you my email address and permission. Or not. I don’t care either way.
And trying to say that this is representative of the typical email user is disingenuous at best. What it really represents is the marketer’s dream opt-out recipient.
Second, if it were true that consumers really felt like this:
Feel free to send me email. I don’t really have the time to bother with figuring out how to give you permission. I don’t want a relationship with you, I want you to sell me stuff as well as you can so I can make an informed decision whether to buy.
then we would see a drastically different world. ISPs would not be using “spam blocking” as a selling point because people’s chief complaint would be that they were missing out on important messages from people who were trying to “sell me stuff as well as they can”. But that’s not the world we live in. The world we live in is one where people are looking for more relevance and greater permission. It’s the world where the Obama administration is looking to score points with people by taking a more direct hand in privacy regulations. It’s the world where Gmail’s Priority Inbox and Facebook’s new Messages platform are based upon permission, interaction, and relevance.
Marketers should not kid themselves, even for a moment, that permission is unimportant to people. We see it driving marketplace innovation and political regulation. People are not asking for less privacy and permission, they’re asking for a greater emphasis on it. And marketers dismiss that, flippantly or not, at their peril.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matthew Vernhout, John Caldwell, The Email Guide, Neil Schwartzman, Spamtacular.com and others. Spamtacular.com said: Blog post: The Most Wrong-Headed Thing I Have Read Today http://bit.ly/d0nR1K #emailmarketing [...]
[...] Source: Spamtacular by Mickey Chandler [...]
Great reply, Neil. Sure… subscribers aren't anywhere near as educated as we professionals are in these things, but they're certainly not imbeciles. Even BEFORE I was involved in email marketing as a profession, as a subscriber I resented the implication that I was too stupid not to check my own box to opt-in, or the assumption that just because I bought something from you, I want to get emails every single day from you or one of your "trusted partners." I have a word for those tactics… but I won't use it here!
I can't tell you how many clients I talk to who just assume that since they have the email address of someone who purchased a ticket to an event a few months ago, that's explicit permission to send those ticket buyers newsletters about every other event the marketer may be promoting, in perpetuity. It's my job to try and educate them out of it, or to at least steer them toward making their first communication with these folks a re-engagement or confirmation campaign. Unfortunately, many seem to have the same mentality as Gretchen at MediaPost. "Hey, they bought something from me & gave me an address… that means they WANT me to contact them."
Guess what? If I purchase a ticket to a show for my daughter, supplying my email address for a confirmation of that particular purchase transaction does NOT mean I want to get email alerts for every crazy DJ or musical act that's coming to Southern California!
My advice to my clients is to ASK for an ACTUAL double opt-in signup to a separate list right there in that purchase transaction email. In the same scenario as above, if that confirmation of purchase includes a link that says something like, "Sign up here to find out about our events," I now have the choice of not opting in at all, or alternately, of giving my daughter's email address so that SHE (the person who's actually interested) can receive the event alerts.
Some of them realize that's a much better way of doing things… unfortunately, many others don't. However, if a client comes back later complaining about delivery I'll say, "Remember when we had that discussion where I said that giving you my email for a purchase confirmation doesn't automatically mean I want to be on your newsletter list? Remember how I said you might be shooting yourself in the foot? This is the part where you're hopping around bleeding all over the joint!"
But it's my job (and a personal mission) to educate my clients out of their bad habits and old ways of thinking. Sometimes they're like children, and lessons aren't learned or things don't sink in until there's been some pain involved. So I do my Mom act: mop up what I can, bandage 'em up, and show them one more time how to do things properly.
Mickey, I agree with you 100%. I was shocked when I read the letter. I would hope that's not really how marketers think consumers think. I posted the following reply on her post:
Gretchen,
I can see both sides of the argument here, and have seen both be successful. Ultimately, I have to side with the permission-only folks like Neil for several reasons:
1. Online marketing is different than offline (which you site as one of the major reasons non-permission-based email marketing is okay). The vast majority of online marketing tactics, with the exclusion of banner ads is pull-based, not push. Consumers seek YOU out through search (SEO and PPC), they find your website, they opt-in for your emails (which I agree with Neil here – if a consumer has to search for it, you're doing it wrong), social is purely opt-in, and to take it sort-of offline again, so is mobile. I would argue there is more of a case for permission-based email marketing based on its current peer group than any direct marketing offline.
2. Consumers, by and large, utilize an email address they regularly check and use for online purchases. There have been numerous studies and personal case studies I can point to that show consumers get angry when that sacred email address gets inundated with spam — which I would argue non-permission-based email marketing is by nature. Unless the consumer has explicitly opened that email address up to you, the marketer, it's a fine line you are walking with "it's okay, they have bought from us in the past" and "they will never buy from us again for spamming them".
3. To me, a one-time purchaser does not a customer make. My belief is that the more you gain a purchaser's trust and permission, the higher the likelihood that they'll buy from you again…which bring me to my fourth point:
4. In every case — seriously, every one — that I've worked with a client to measure permission vs. none for customers, the ROI, Lifetime value and AOV are always higher when permission is involved. Just because you can make money without permission doesn't mean it'll be more profitable that doing it the right way. This is the same argument we've had for years regarding eAppends and buying lists. Yes you can make money from both, but you could be making so much more money by growing your list organically.
I have more points, but for now I'll leave it at that.
-Kelly Lorenz
[...] I mentioned in my last post, I asked my dad to have a look at Gretchen Scheiman’s MediaPost post. My dad is a baby boomer [...]
I beg to differ with you on one point, Mick – you DO know someone who occasionally can't remember if she gave permission to a particular company or not – your very own wife. I'm probably more internet-savvy than the average bear, but I have a lousy memory, and sometimes, if it is a company that I have done business with and generally like, I really don't remember if I opted in or not. I totally agree with the rest of your comments, though!
Carol
The point there is that your attitude is not "I don't care either way." You do care, even if you don't remember.