Don't get too proud about technology
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow on September 22, 2008
At its heart, email is simply communicating with people.I know that. You know that.
Which is why the new email marketing, for example, focuses on relationships and the subscriber as empowered individual.
All the super new tools and technologies developed by email marketing services help make that communication more effective.
Technology enables targeting, trigger emails, tailored content and lots of other tremendous things we'd be hard pressed to implement with Outlook and an abacus.
Technology helps us send more relevant email...but we need to take care how we "present" this relevancy.
If that concept seems a little strange or unclear, consider this example:
Suppose a funky integrated web/email system knows that I visited the digital camera section at your website several times, but never got as far as placing an order.
Technology whips into action, sending me an email with some featured offers from exactly that product group. Relevancy in action. Brilliant.
But is the email made more relevant if you add the words, "We noticed you were browsing the digital camera section, so thought you might like..."?
That approach works for a human-human interaction in a store, where an attentive sales person can helpfully point the bemused browser to the right product.
But when transferred to a digital (email) environment, does this "we noticed" approach come across the same way? I suspect not.
It doesn't add anything to the relevancy of the email, which is self-evident from the offers included. But it does encourage the Uncanny Valley effect. Or as Seth Godin puts it:
"When you get too good at faking it, people freak out."
You can make emails relevant by using what you observe about the recipient (their previous click behavior, their website browsing habits etc.).
You can make emails scary by telling people that you're observing them. Even when your privacy and communication practices are as ethical as they should be.
If you doubt the likelihood of negative reactions to email copy that essentially says "we're watching you," here are two real-world examples:
1. Mathew Patterson discusses the startled reactions of one Dell subscriber to a "You haven't opened our email" message.
2. And Sundeep Kapur describes the Big Brother reaction he felt when a sales rep called and told him what email links he'd clicked on.
It's OK to be pleased about the subscriber insights gained through technology. But it's probably best to be a little circumspect about communicating this fact directly. Agree?
Permalink | Add to del.icio.us | 2 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | as a biweekly newsletter
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
2 Comments:
I agree in general.
Bit what's interesting about this is that I'm not sure this applies to all businesses.
Amazon, for example, pretty blatantly tells you "we know what you're interested in."
Example: I've gotten 2 emails in 3 days from them that told me they knew what I was up to. Here are the opening paragraphs from each email:
1. "As someone who has shown an interest in Camera, Photo & Video, you might like to know that, through September 30, we're offering special 24-month financing on top digital SLRs, lenses, video cameras and more."
2. "As someone who has shopped Camera, Photo & Video at Amazon.com, you may be interested in the exciting new line of Canon digital cameras, including the highly-anticipated EOS 5D Mark II DSLR and PowerShot G10."
Thing is, I'm not creeped out or mad about this. Why?
I think our old friend expectations plays a part here. As a consumer, I expect this type of tracking from Amazon. I don't expect it from a travel agency.
The questions then become:
1. Why do subscriber expect and accept (welcome?) this level of "watching" from some companies, but not others?
2. If we're agreed that being able to utilize this watching is a good thing for senders, how do we get our subscribers to accept/welcome it from us?
By 
Justin Premick, on
23 September, 2008
Great questions Justin.
I think you're right that it's more nuanced than the above post would indicate.
Agree that expectations plays a role.
Would add maybe trust.
And also possibly wording.
If the cited behavior was a clear action on my part (like a past purchase), then I'm not going to get worked up about it being quoted back at me. I volunteered that information.
I wonder if people are put off when they are surprised (back to expectations). Like when they're told they haven't opened an email.
Amazon say, for example, "shown an interest in" which is vaguer and softer and less in-your-face than "we noticed you browsed the camera part of the website."
Also, you and me both understand how web / email analytics work, so we're unlikely to get too bothered. Others may differ.
Like you say, it's nuanced.
I wonder if it's done sometimes to preempt the "why am I getting this?" question. So people don't cry spam?
So are people reassured or made uncertain about their privacy? I throw that out to debate with this post.
(Presumably Amazon know that they're doing, so maybe people are more reassured than scared?)
Would be interesting to test of course! And I think it's as much about understanding the power of subtle changes in wording. "Shown an interest in" better than "browsed the webpage"? Or not...lol.
Thanks for sparking some more thoughts!
By 
Mark Brownlow - Email Marketing Reports, on
23 September, 2008
