Does good ROI mean it was a good campaign?

Interesting case study over at MarketingSherpa, partly because of the questions it raises.

It describes how a charity used a 4-email campaign to increase ROI on a fundraising promotion by 30%. Great stuff. But it also mentions an average open rate of 6.5% and CTR of 18%.

It's hard to argue with ROI, especially when the beneficiaries are a charity. But the response rate was relatively low (my interpretation of the article is that most names were rented, not from a house list.)

So what are the impacts of all those non-responders? Are there any impacts? (On the brand, on spam complaint levels, on future delivery rates?) Does it matter to the charity involved, since they (I think) didn't use their own lists anyway? Is ROI the only determinant of success?

Does it matter if you get low response rates to a campaign as long as you get a positive return on your investment?

Thoughts?

More case studies | Tags: email marketing, email marketing metrics

Permalink | August 16, 2007 | 0 comment(s)
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter

0 Comments:

Comments closed for this post