A note on subject lines
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow on November 15, 2006
The recent study on email creative from Silverpop found that "emails with branded subject lines generated significantly higher open rates."
Many folk have latched on to this valuable discovery, and you'll find numerous articles suggesting that you should put your brand name in the subject line.
I'm not going to disagree with that, but invite you to think a little harder about it.
The Silverpop survey (correct me if I'm wrong) was not based on A/B testing. Instead, they looked at emails with branded subject lines and those without branded subject lines, and compared the average open rates. Which is fine.
But too many people forget that the association between branded subject line and higher open rate does not explain WHY the higher open rates are there.
The assumption that leads to the blanket recommendation to put your brand name in there, is that a brand name in the subject line directly causes more people to open the email.
But what if that's not true in all cases? Here's a theory...
If you have a recognisable brand, you likely also have a better-than-average competence or expertise in email marketing. So you're probably better than most at writing subject lines that work and you have a history of sending targeted, relevant email to senders.
So the increased open rate from branded subject lines might actually come from a combination of:
1. Brand recognition
2. Well-written subject line
3. Recipient's experience with previous emails
Now suppose your brand isn't very recognisable. Suppose you aren't a subject line expert. And suppose you don't have a history of better-than-average email campaigns?
Would putting your brand in your subject line still work? Or is it actually the email expertise associated with brands that lifted open rates?
Would your brand name then simply take up subject line space better used for presenting the offer or hinting at the engaging content in your email? Without providing enough of a "recognition" lift to compensate?
I don't know. (The old theory was that putting your brand / organization in the from line took care of the recognition issue.)
All I do know is that we should never assume that what works for some senders would work for others. Not without thinking about the reasoning behind any global recommendation. And certainly not before first testing the theory out with our own email list.
Tags: subject lines, email marketing
Many folk have latched on to this valuable discovery, and you'll find numerous articles suggesting that you should put your brand name in the subject line.
I'm not going to disagree with that, but invite you to think a little harder about it.
The Silverpop survey (correct me if I'm wrong) was not based on A/B testing. Instead, they looked at emails with branded subject lines and those without branded subject lines, and compared the average open rates. Which is fine.
But too many people forget that the association between branded subject line and higher open rate does not explain WHY the higher open rates are there.
The assumption that leads to the blanket recommendation to put your brand name in there, is that a brand name in the subject line directly causes more people to open the email.
But what if that's not true in all cases? Here's a theory...
If you have a recognisable brand, you likely also have a better-than-average competence or expertise in email marketing. So you're probably better than most at writing subject lines that work and you have a history of sending targeted, relevant email to senders.
So the increased open rate from branded subject lines might actually come from a combination of:
1. Brand recognition
2. Well-written subject line
3. Recipient's experience with previous emails
Now suppose your brand isn't very recognisable. Suppose you aren't a subject line expert. And suppose you don't have a history of better-than-average email campaigns?
Would putting your brand in your subject line still work? Or is it actually the email expertise associated with brands that lifted open rates?
Would your brand name then simply take up subject line space better used for presenting the offer or hinting at the engaging content in your email? Without providing enough of a "recognition" lift to compensate?
I don't know. (The old theory was that putting your brand / organization in the from line took care of the recognition issue.)
All I do know is that we should never assume that what works for some senders would work for others. Not without thinking about the reasoning behind any global recommendation. And certainly not before first testing the theory out with our own email list.
Tags: subject lines, email marketing
[This post brought to you by Campaigner Email Marketing]
Permalink | Add to del.icio.us | 1 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | as a biweekly newsletter
Permalink | Add to del.icio.us | 1 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | as a biweekly newsletter
Sign-up for the Email Marketing Reports NEWSLETTER
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
1 Comments:
I agree with your post. What if your brand suffers from the plethora of phishing mails out there because the brand is a bank?
By 
Dan, on
20 November, 2006
