Non-Line Blogging

I want to challenge our assumptions about email frequency.  Let’s start with a piercing question: If you mail people more often do you deliver more “successful outcomes” or just make people angry?

We seem to be obsessed about hurting people’s feelings.  We’ve been brought up in a culture that says too much email is a bad, bad thing.  But we've probably never tested "how much is too much", and we've never established the risk of people un-subscribing against the reward of incremental success.   I've tried to model it as a couple of graphs...

In this graph we see 2 campaign options...maybe invitations to an event, or follow-ups to a quote enquiry.  If we only send 2 messages to people (the lighter columns) we end up "converting" only 40% of all those people who could be convinced into buying.  However, if we kept hammering away at people with more messages we may convert the remaining 60% by the 9th message.  Makes us feel un-comfortable, doesn't it?  That's because we intuitively feel that the un-subscribe rate will increase.  But will it really?  Have we tested it?  Can we graph it?  Will it look like this?

The darker columns indicate our best guess of what will happen.  We think that by sending out 1 message few people will un-subscribe, but by sending out 2 or 3 the sky will be blackened with people hitting the "un-subscribe" button, and by message 9 we will probably have deliverability problems for ever.  Yet the reality (lighter columns) could be that even after 5 messages half the people are still "in the market", and only by message 9 do we reach un-subscribe saturation point.

Let's take a campaign opportunity - one where we have a "window of opportunity" to get somebody to buy/register.  Insurance quotes are a great one for this model...people get a quotes from a few companies and make up their mind about which company to go with in about 10 days.  Here's what we do as marketers...

• We send out a quote confirmation on day 1
• Then 2 days later we send out a quote chaser.
• That's it.
• Silence.
• They choose a competitor on day 6
• They stay with them for 3 years
• What a wasted opportunity.

Now, what if we found reasons to get back in touch with people?  What if on day 3 we told them that we had a competition for all new insurance customers?  And on day 5 we told them that they could possibly save more money on the quote as you had taken on another under-writing company..or you just offered them another 20% discount?

• 3 more messages
• 30% more customers for 3 years
• A few more un-subscribes...probably people who were never going to be customers anyway
• More sales - very low risk
• What are you waiting for?

Some examples to inspire - and re-assure

Please don't think that by simply hammering people with the same message more often you will be more successful.  Try and think of engaging ways to re-position the call to action.  Be interesting.  Do a few different things.

Abandoned Registrations

This is a great opportunity to turn up the message frequency to get people to complete a "double opt-in" join process.  I was told by a fried that, as I have a lovely pet dog, I should sign up to Dogster.  I went through the web bit, but never quite got around to the email activation bit.  So I was locked into their "email opt-in reminder programme"

What I like about this is the need to chase people to complete the registration process.  Not one chaser, but 5.  Not one subject line, but 3.  Question marks and exclamation marks!  I converted on the last one...maybe there would have been a few more had I resisted.  And, as this is the only excuse I'll ever have, here is a picture of my faithful hound, Dylan.

Registered but not Purchased

Here is a lovely BtoB example of contact density.  I received 10 emails from the same company for the same event with the same call to action - "please come to our event".  But it was spread over a 5 month period, and they used a variety of angles to seduce me into registering.  Here they all are...

Nice variety of subject lines moving from "be better at your job" through to "have a wonderful time with loads of fun people" through to "make sure you get a bed for the night".  In essence it is saying "please come to our event".  Sadly I didn't, but that's because I was busy not because the email failed to convert me.

Frequency + Engagement = Results?

So what have we learned from all that?  Maybe you can ramp up the number of times you reach people by email during "windows of opportunity"...abandoned shopping carts, abandoned registrations and "non-purchased" segments.  We have to do it in a creative, engaging way otherwise we look and sound like spammers.    But if we get it right there should be little collateral damage as the only people who might un-subscribe could be the prospects who were not right for you anyway.

One final thought...as more people tune in for Google alerts, what is the "frequency" defaulted to?  

Daily.  

Just goes to show that we don't mind getting an email a day if it is relevant.  Maybe now is the time to test reaching people just a little bit more often.