Yep, although recent studies show that the more people use social media, the more they actually use email. See, for example, the research cited at EmailisnotDead.com (biased site, mind, since I built it).

The stats in there were overwhelming…but the one thing that stood out to me was the decrease in the use of email as a means of communication (I think it was said that BU no longer even assigns email addresses to incoming students).

Lots to think about.

I am falling in love with this blog. I think this post might have done it with the professional graph, but I'd guess it's because I usually have the same opinion as you. I have been asking if this is enough for a while now too. With all of the buzz around about SMM and Email marketing, I am not convinced that they are self supporting marketing tools. I think that is a no-brainer, but many companies are resorting to that move. Thanks for the post.

I do believe that the way "we" (consumers) are using emails will evolve a lot in 2010, 2011. And I'm also convinced that most of "us" (email marketers) won't see the turning point or won't be able to fit correctly consumers' needs / uses.

As you rightly point, social networking has (and will have, more and more) important consequences on the email market. Not only because of the % of administrative messages generated on our mailbox, but because it changes the intrinsic purpose of the email. Email tends to become a simple link to access to the message, and not a message itself.

Technical innovations such as Google Wave may turn upside down our way of communicating. Maybe this is not for tomorrow… but let's imagine the day after, and conclude this comment by saying that email marketers will have to evolve too… or slowly agonize !

The lack of resources is a big issue. One thing that came out of the UK DMA national client survey was that many marketers were indeed aware of the need to improve, but lacked the resources to do so.

Part of your solution (to demonstrate the value of improvements) would also help there, since it would enable marketers to argue for more resources from senior executives and bank managers.

This is also why I put together the post on segmentation, collating case studies and surveys identifying the concrete benefits in terms of better responses. Your generous comment encourages me to think I should repeat the concept for other areas, like the welcome message.

Thanks again for taking the time to make such valuable points!

The question is then : why marketers don't do what they believe should be good for them ?
This question itself seems insane… doesn't it ?

I guess the first answer is that they don't "really believe" it is better for them.
Let's face it, eventhough emailing is easy it still requires lot of knowledge (technical and email marketing) and ressources to put in place a real effective email program. Most of the time marketers miss both of them.

A second answer would be that we need to demonstrate things rather than stating that the marketers will gain this or this. And to do so we need to work on a step by step basis and demonstrate for each step what is really gained (i.e : setting up a welcome pack is not that demanding and it brings great results… furthermore once in place it is completely automated so it doesn't require further ressources).

One last point I see here is that marketers don't segment their database :
They compare their email campaign results to benchmarks.
For instance let's say an average open rate (benchmark information) is 20%. If a marketer see that its campaign has an open rate of 22% he will then state that his emailing program is over performing and then why should he change anything about it.
This being said, benchmark from year to year show that the results are getting lower and lower and so a marketer with lower and lower results is still aligned with the benchmark… why should he worry ?

First : benchmark studies give a macro vision and mix results from very different type of campaign and avdertiser practices. It is not relevant figures !

Second : marketers doing this forget a main (maybe the most) important thing in direct marketing – all their contact in their database are not reacting the same way.
A quick study based on the email activity of the different contacts in a marketer database demonstrate that some contacts have never been reactive to the program. This automatically lower the overall results.
To make it quick, marketers MUST look deeper into their campaign results to have a real idea and control of their email program.

Of course, this is my very personal vision of the market today.

Frédéric Testard