An email newsletter from a digital media agency landed in my inbox today. It urged my business to get a Facebook page, extolled the many virtues and benefits of so doing, and then helpfully advised me that if needed, they could help me set it up. I presume a fee would be involved. My first reaction was to say that the sort of companies who need help setting up a Facebook page have no place in the digital media arena. Then I reread their list of great reasons to have one. At the end of this highly tenuous and often desperate list, I wondered whether any company should bother. A year ago the airwaves were full of digital marketers banging on about ROI and how Facebook would be a contributing factor, nay, a leading one in your digital campaign. Now they are talking about ROR - return of relationship, an as yet undefined and again highly tenuous concept which presumably means their is no ROI, but if we invent something called ROR then that will go someway to making up for the disappointment of not getting any ROI. Then of course there are the many reasons why a company Facebook page can actually severely damage your customer relationships. Facebook takes what could / should be a private conversation between company and customers and brings it into the public domain. When those comments turn negative, enormous damage can result. Sure, you can moderate it, but who monitors their facebook page 24/7 - only those who can afford to have someone 24/7 keeping tabs on what the people say. Then there';s the old dwindling content factor - running out of interesting posts, because lets face it, there really not that much great and interesting news to keep your hordes of likers interested. And now that every company they do business with has a Facebook page, and they are being heavily incentivised to like them all, it's practically a full time job just following the posts of the companies you do business with. Then when are you going to read their tweets? The biggest reason that Facebook is still around is that it is worth billions, and it is worth billions because some heavyweight institutions have lent it a lot of money, and their only chance right now of getting it out is to say it's value just keeps increasing and hope someone takes it off them. Remember the early days of the web - Elephants graveyard of poorly conceived websites. FB is / will be the same.

Stats we like!

Statistics / metrics are a major part of online marketing - their exactness humbles traditional media.

Below are a few just released that we find particularly noteworthy:

In 2010, 30% of total email time was devoted to commercial emails, compared to 17% in 2005. (Merkle)

90-100% of Millennials (Ages 18-33) engage in email as an online activity. (Pew Research Center)

90% of adults internet users in every age group subscribed to emails from brands, while significantly fewer "liked" companies on Facebook or followed them on Twitter. (ExactTarget)

What conclusions can we draw from these - pretty much what we want, as with all stats, but I think the following are inescapable:

1. Facebook and Twitter will never replace email - just complement it

2. Email is a channel that demands, and achieves attention

3. Tomorrows customers are highly emailcentric - always remember this, because they are your future.

It's good to see stats suppoirting our belief that email is alive and well, and growing, not shrinking in significance.

Timing

Today is the day after the Christchurch earthquake. A nation reels in shock and horror as the full extent of the disaster is revealed. It is hard to focus on anything else, just as it is hard to gain a sense of perspective on what has happened.

Today I have also received no less than 16 marketing emails, not spam, but legitimate ones from lists to which I am subscribed.

I am staggered. Is it stupidity, or just a plain lack of sensitivety?

Either way it is wrong. This is not a day for email marketing. I have unsubscribed from all of them. I hope, if you get them, you do too.

The next big hurdle!

Something new and potentially devious has just appeared in the world of email marketing. It relates specifically to delivery, and to those addresses on your database with a gmail, yahoo or hotmail suffix - it's called engagement filtering, and it's the latest weapon in the war on spam.

Engagement filtering will judge your email based on how well it engages the recipient - how they react to it - clicking links, replying etc - the first time that filtering has been based on positive behaviour.

If engagement levels are low, then so will your sender reputation be.

This poses all sorts of challenges for email marketers - to be seen as a good sender and avoid widescale filtering by the big 3, you need mechanisms in each and every email you send which prompt either response of clicking. In other words, your copy has to be very engaging and relevant.

Now, many people say this is a good thing - the industry is forcing email markeeters to do a better job. Fair point.

But at the same time, it effectively prohibits the sending of passive announcements.

It's another typically reactive measure by the big 3 to the spam problem. It's not the answer, and I suspect all it will mean is a lot of legitimate emails will fail to reach recipients.

Which given that 74% of hotmail users say the reason they have a hotmail account is to channel all commercial email to, doesn't make much sense.

It's the end of email, Zuckers

So Facebook's new product is signalling the end of email, is it?

I suppose you have to salute Mark Zuckerberg - after all he does dominate the world of social media.

But Facebook is hardly making any money, it's rivals are collapsing around it, and presumably he needs plenty more investment to carry on. So statements, and products such as his new chat mail are inevitable - but perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt.

His comment, for example, that subject lines are so formal is a good example of where he is going wrong. Subject lines are vital in deciding what messages to read, and when.

Zuckerberg may be a visionary. He may be predicting the future. But in doing so he is missing the present. Email, even in it's purest form is still an evolving tool - both for ordinary communications, and for business marketing.

Very few businesses have Facebook predominant audiences, but most have email based ones. Very few companies have so far really worked out how to use Facebook as a marketing tool with any great degree of success. Quite a lot are getting the hang of email.

Facebook still blurs too much the distinction between private and business - it's use during office hours is frowned upon by too many right now.

So here's to you, Mr Zuckerberg. The only way you can be a presence in the email market is to try and change it, and we salute you for trying. But the end of email? Not yet, methinks.

Upping the preview pane impact

The importance of making the right impact in the preview pane cannot be overestimated.

So many companies still insist on dominating this valuable real estate with a web type banner, which doers little more than show a repetitive picture, and at best slightly add to the branding of the email.

With images disabled in so many browsers nowadays, the impact of this banner is in fact a negative one – especially as many companies also neglect to recognise the value of compelling alt text – mind you, some browsers disable that as well. What a battle.

There is a simple answer – we now recommend it to all clients – and it is working.

Summarise in no more than two lines the key message of your email, and place that at the very top – above any images, web versions etc – so it is the very first thing readers see.

Try it – it works!

Want to discuss? jflay@inbox.net.nz

Incentivised database growth

Using competitions and incentives to get people to sign up to receive your email information is a tried and tested formula - inasmuch as it does generate response.

But how valid is it in the modern marketplace?

Sign up competitions are two a penny - to stand out, organisers are increasingly forced to offer expensive prizes - and I wonder how often they really show a worthwhile ROI?

For starters, people who sign up are doing so primarily to win the prize, not because they specifically want to receive your marketing emails or newsletters. Expect a heavy initial unsubscribe rate, however well you do in engaging them with your first send out. It's not a reflection on your email or it's content, simply on how the recipients were gathered. But it is a reality. If 40% unsubscribe initially, and another 30% in the first few weeks, was it worthwhile?

Then there's the issue of how quickly you get in touch with them. Many companies, especially those who choose to gather their emails on bits of paper, often wait months before actually using their newly found database. They might as well have not bothered, as most will have forgotten signing up, why they signed up, and why they might want to continue receiving your information.

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting abandoning competitions and incentives as way to grow your database.

But I do think it should only be a small part of your strategy for database growth, and if you do do it, make sure you follow up quickly, and effectively.

Want to talk more about this? jflay@inbox.net.nz