Integrating email and social marketing: 20 questions to ask first
Latest posts | Feed | | By Mark Brownlow
Email marketing is hot...and social marketing is even hotter.The two fields are already holding hands and exchanging shy smiles across the dinner table: talk of marriage is in the air.
But before rushing off to add those Twitter links to the next email promotion, perhaps it's worth thinking through the consequences.
Here a few relevant questions that crossed my notepad this week...
1. If we add "share this" links to an email, pointing at sites like Twitter and Facebook, do we have the kind of email content people will actually want to share?
Such links give people a way to share, but not a reason to do so. That's the bigger issue.
2. If the content is not particularly shareworthy, does asking people to "Digg" our new telephone number make us look lame?
3. If the content is indeed shareworthy, do we get some benefit out of that?
4. How can we measure that benefit?
5. In fact, what kind of content/offers should we develop to give value to the recipient, encourage sharing, and give value to us through this sharing?
6. What sharing tools and links best maximize this value and spreadability?
7. Do these sharing tools and links take up email real estate that has better uses? Or draw attention away from other important calls to action?
8. If we add these "share this" links to social networks, are we raising expectations that we ourselves have an adequate presence on the destination sites? (See this thoughtful post by Dylan Boyd.)
9. If we use email to get people to follow us on Twitter, get our blog feed or become Facebook fans, are we simply switching people from one channel to another or are we creating extra contact points?
10. If people are switching from email to Twitter, Facebook, RSS etc., does that change their value to us? Is a Twitter follower more or less valuable than a Facebook fan...than an email subscriber...than a blog subscriber?
11. Does that matter? Is perhaps giving people more communication choices the only way to ensure their long-term attention and loyalty?
12. If people are switching, how can we deliver as much (or more) value through these new social channels as we do via email, so we don't disappoint people?
13. If people are adding channels and following us at various places (e.g. Facebook, Twitter and via email), should the content delivered at each place be the same or different?
14. If the same, are we usefully reinforcing the message or simply contributing to fatigue and information overload?
15. If different, how different? Do we know how expectations and response behavior differ between email and social channels? Can we find out?
16. If different, have we thought through how the content and messages interact across these channels?
17. How do we design our social and email presence and content so that it works for those getting all of it AND those subscribing to only one of those channels?
18. Might we segment email subscribers by social channel? So that those who see us at Facebook and on Twitter could get different content and offers to those who don't?
19. Who is in charge of all this integration?
20. How much is it costing and is this cost justified?
Any other questions?
Related posts:
Adding social links to emails: what and where
Coding emails and landing pages with social links
Permalink | May 04, 2009 | 10 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
10 Comments:
Great list of questions Mark. There is a lot more to it than just setting up an account on the social media sites. You need to have a goal or purpose instead of randomly posting information.
By 
Michael, on
04 May, 2009
I agree....every point of contact has a purpose and a different effect. Direct mail has it's uses when e-mail cannot connect. As far as I can tell, we're still in the pop-up stage of marketing as far as Twitter, Facebook et al are concerned.
By Lara Walsh, on
05 May, 2009
Thanks Michael, Lara. My main belief is that doing something just because it's hot is not a good reason and can backfire. If it's hot, it means it's worth your attention, but you still need to think it through for your particular situation.
By , on
05 May, 2009
Thought provoking list of questions of Mark. It would be extremly interesting to see your thoughts on the pros and cons of each in a future post!
By Brad, on
05 May, 2009
Thanks Brad. Yep, I will address some of these issues where I think I can contribute something useful. We're still working out the rules for a lot of this though. Not even sure there are rules frankly...!
By , on
05 May, 2009
Re: #2 - I think it depends on consistency.
If you don't normally ask people to Digg things, and you ask them to Digg something lame/pointless/self-serving, then yes, you look lame.
Re: #9, 10, 11 - Kevin Hillstrom's recent post on organic percentages has me thinking.
I wonder if a valuable goal is/should be to maximize your organic audience (if not the organice percentage itself), rather than maximizing clickthroughs, direct sales from a given email or other easier-to-measure (and easier-to-use to justify your email budget) metrics.
If so, does giving people more contact points, as well as the ability to choose how they want to interact with our brands, increase the likelihood of that person becoming an "organic" customer (i.e. they'll buy when they feel like it, not always/necessarily in response to a specific touchpoint, but they will buy)? Sort of like Kevin Kelly's "1000 true fans" idea.
By Justin Premick, on
05 May, 2009
Interesting Justin. The regularly quoted utopia is to have a brand that people think of automatically whenever they need to make a related purchase. Like I buy all books from Amazon without even thinking about alternatives.
But reaching that status involves a lot more than just how you market...it gets down to the fundamental philosophy and approach you take to business and customers. Not to mention the quality of your products and service.
Truly embracing relationship email and social marketing means changing that philosophy for many.
No answers from me, but I like the idea of giving people choice of communication channel, then ensuring you deliver enough true value (altruism as enlightended self-interest) to build that organic, loyal base.
The flipside is that there is a gap between what people say they prefer and to what they actually happily respond.
So the delicate, value-oriented customer-centric touch I like can still benefit from a few direct prods to "buy now!"
There are answers out there somewhere. I'm fascinated by the whole thing. Could spend hours musing about it. But kids need feeding!
By , on
05 May, 2009
This is a very comprehensive list of questions to ask. Thanks! I completely agree with the necessity of offering information that people value enough to share. The content is SO important.
By EH, on
05 May, 2009
Thanks EH. Yes, we do seem to focus on the hows and not the whys of sharing. Seth Godin had a good riff on that concept recently, too.
By , on
05 May, 2009
Thanks for this post, it discussed finer details. Point 18 is specially useful it indicates that content of e-mails will have to be configured to the target audience rather than a generic e-mail going to all.
By atul chatterjee, on
09 May, 2009
