Getting opt-in permission from customers and prospects to receive future e-mail communications might be considered the holy grail of marketing. When granted e-mail access, companies can pinpoint-target their communications to a quality audience at a small fraction of the cost of other marketing tactics.
So, an important function of most marketing departments is to build a robust opt-in e-mail database – the more names the better – to receive future e-communications.
But a recent study by e-mail deliverability specialist Return Path on the dynamics of new subscriber engagement shows that the early days of e-mail engagement can be fraught with peril.
To collect its findings, Return Path analyzed nearly 1,400 brands that use its proprietary consumer network data for Gmail, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL subscribers, then published the results in its Lifecycle Benchmark report.
To begin with, Return Path found that fewer than half of new e-mail subscribers provide an active e-address when opting in to receive communications. The remainder provide an address that is either inactive, or rarely checked.
What this means is that fewer than half of all new signups are destined to interact with any future e-communications.
Another key finding from the Return Path study is that the complaint rate is high in the first days following the opt-in to receive communications. The complaint rate averages ~4% during the first month, although this figure falls to 1% during the first year. (Complaint rates for “mature” opt-in names are far lower – averaging less than 0.2% overall.)
More positively, Return Path’s research found that average first-touch read rates are significantly higher among new opt-in contacts: ~39% initially and ~35% over the first 20 days. That compares to an overall read rate average of just ~22%.
As for longer-term experience, the Return Path findings show that ~56% of new opt-ins stay for 12 months rather than unsubscribing. Moreover, ~31% of the new opt-ins continue to engage with the e-communications after the first year.
So, a mixed bag of results – ones that show both promise and pitfalls. To access more findings from Return Path’s research, click here to request a report summary.
What differentiates B-to-B companies who carry out successful content marketing initiatives compared to those whose efforts are less impactful?
It isn’t an easy question to answer in a very quantitative way, but the Content Marketing Institute, working in conjunction with MarketingProfs, has reached some conclusions based on a survey it conducted in June and July of 2018 with nearly 800 North American content marketers. (This was the 9th year that the annual survey has been fielded.)
Beginning with a “self-graded” question, respondents were asked to rate the success of their company’s content marketing endeavors. A total of 27% of respondents rated their efforts as either very or extremely successful, compared to 22% who rated their results at the other end of the scale (minimally successful or not successful at all).
The balance of the CMI survey questions focused on this subset of ~380 respondents on both ends of the spectrum, in order to determine how content marketing efforts and results were happening differently between the two groups of marketers.
… And there were some fundamental differences discovered. To begin with, more than 90% of the self-described “successful” group of B-to-B content marketers reported that they prioritize their audience’s informational needs more highly than sales and promotional messaging.
By comparison, just 56% of the other group prioritize in this manner — instead favoring company-focused messaging in greater proportions.
Other disparities determined between the two groups of marketers relate to the extent of activities undertaken in three key analytical areas:
The use of primary research
The use of customer conversations and panels
Also importantly, ~93% of the respondents in the “successful” group described their organization as being “highly committed” to content marketing, compared to just ~35% of the respondents in the second group who feel this way.
Moreover, this disparity extends to self-described skill levels when it comes to implementing content marketing programs. More than nine in ten of the “successful” CMS group of respondents characterize themselves as “sophisticated” or “mature” in terms of their knowledge level.
For the other group of respondents, it’s just one in ten.
Despite these differences in perceived skills, it turns out that content marketing dissemination practices are pretty uniform across both groups of companies. Tactics used by both include sponsored content on social media platforms, search engine marketing, and web banner advertising. It’s in the messaging itself — as well as the analysis of performance — where the biggest differences appear to be.
For more information on findings from the 2018 Content Marketing Survey, click here.
In recent years, companies and brands have found it increasingly difficult to navigate the PR waters in a politically polarized environment.
On the one hand, companies want to be seen as progressive and inclusive organizations. On the other, there is concern about coming off as too controversial.
The environment is about as toxic as it’s ever been. In the “good old days,” companies were able to merrily avoid controversy by supporting universally agreed-upon “benign” causes. But whereas in the 1970s or 1980s, celebrating Christmas or financially supporting the city’s symphony orchestra or fine art gallery was never faulted, today the situation is different.
Acknowledging a religious holiday risks criticism about offending non-believers or shortchanging people of other spiritual faiths. And dishing out dollars in support of “high culture” invites barbs about the need to divert those resources to more “socially woke” initiatives and away from “high culture” pursuits that speak to only a small slice of the general public.
The recent controversy with Nike and its Colin Kaepernick-inspired “Just Do It” campaign is another case in point. It may be a bit of a coin toss, but the conventional view is that Nike’s campaign was, on balance, a modest victory for the company in that more of the public was favorably disposed to it than put off by it. And after a momentary dip in Nike’s share price, the stock recovered and ended up higher.
Less successful was Target’s move to direct its employees to forego wishing customers “Merry Christmas,” and instead use the more generic “Happy Holidays” greeting. Target decided to be “out front” with this issue compared to competitors like Wal-Mart. But after several years of gamely attempting to enforce this guideline in the wake of negative customer reaction and a barrage of bad press on the talk shows, Target finally relented, quietly reverting to the traditional Xmas greeting.
Simply put, in the current cultural environment there are more risk-and-reward issues for brands than ever — and what actually happens as a result is often unpredictable.
And yet … surveys show that many consumers want brands to take overt stands on hot-button issues of the day. Sometimes brands are just as criticized for not taking a stand on those very same hot-button issues — such as whether to adopt gun-free zones in office and retail spaces or deciding what kind of gun-related merchandise will be prohibited from being sold in their stores.
To deal with this increasingly gnarly challenge, recently the marketing technology company 4C Insights developed a “decision tree” exercise that’s elegantly simple. It’s a great “back of the napkin” way for a company to weigh the potential upside and downside factors of taking a stand on a socio-political issue that could potentially impact product sales, corporate reputation, or the company’s share price.
Here’s the 4C Insights cheat-sheet:
To my mind, the 4C Insights decision tree can be applied equally well to weighing a potentially controversial social or cultural issue in addition to a political one.
Indeed, it should be a ready-reference for any PR and marketing professional to pull out whenever issues of this kind come up for discussion.
In this environment, my guess is that it would be referenced quite frequently.
One thing you can say about social media platforms – their world is invariably interesting. Or as a colleague of mine likes to say, “With social media, you drop your pencil, you miss a week.”
The Pew Research Center makes it a point to study the topic twice each year in order to stay on top of the latest shifts in social media usage trends. Pew has just completed its latest report, and what it shows are some findings that confirm longer-term trends along with several evolving new narratives.
One thing hasn’t changed much: Facebook and YouTube continue to dominate the social landscape in the United States. Facebook remains the primary social media platform for most Americans – with two-thirds of U.S. adults reporting that they use Facebook, and three-fourths of those saying that they access the platform on a daily basis.
What this means is that half of all U.S. adults are going on the Facebook platform every day.
If anything, YouTube is even more ubiquitous – at least in terms of the percentage of people who access the platform (nearly 75% of the respondents in the Pew survey). But the frequency of visits is lower, so one could say that the platform isn’t as “sticky” as Facebook.
No other social media platform is used by more than 35% of American adults, according to the Pew survey:
YouTube: ~73% of U.S. adults report that they use this platform
The chart below shows social media usage trends based on Pew Research studies going back to 2012:
Taking a closer look at social media behaviors reveals some stark differences by age group, and they portend even greater changes in the social media landscape as time goes on. In terms of being involved in “any” social media usage, Pew finds significant differences by age cohort:
Age 18-29: ~88% use at least one form of social media
Age 30-49: ~78%
Age 50-64: ~64%
Age 65+: ~37%
So, as the current population ages out, social media participation should go even higher.
But what about the composition of platform usage? Within the 18-24 age group, Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter are used significantly more when compared to even the next oldest age group. Most dramatically, for Snapchat the participation level is ~78% for the youngest group compared to just ~54% for those age 30-49.
Other notable differences among groups include:
Pinterest is much more popular among women (~41% use the platform) than with men (just ~16%).
WhatsApp is particularly popular among American Hispanics (~41%) compared to blacks (~21%) and whites (~14%).
LinkedIn’s niche is upper-income households ($75,000+ annual income), which correlates to higher education levels. Half of American adults with college degrees use LinkedIn, compared to fewer than 10% of those with a high school degree or less.
More detailed results from the Pew Research study can be found here.
Maritz/Wise surveyed nearly 2,100 American adults age 18 and over via online questionnaires and consumer research panels. The respondents were filtered to include purchase decision-makers or key influencers within one or more of six major consumer categories:
Credit card services
The results of the research reveal that brand loyalty isn’t one monolithic mindset, but consumers tend to fall into one of four categories, as follows:
“Mercenaries” – Loyal to brands that pay them to be loyal: ~55% of respondents
“True loyalists” – Stay true to a brand because people connect with it above and beyond any explicit incentives to do so: ~30%
“Sloths” – Can’t be bothered to switch brands due to inertia: ~8%
“Cultists” – The brand represents their personal identity: ~7%
What the Maritz/Wise research also tells us is where people come down on brand loyalty attributes is based more on attitudinal characteristics than something that can be segmented easily based on conventional demographics.
In other words, brand loyalty characteristics aren’t driven by age, gender or income level; mercenaries and cultists are found in their expected proportions across the spectrum of loyalty.
In another finding, when it comes to the “transactional” nature of brand loyalty, the research discovered that the “art of the deal” is based on money.
Gift cards, cash-back and credits are overwhelmingly preferred forms of reward for brand loyalty – and these apply to everyone no matter where they may land on the brand loyalty spectrum.
So, the next time we hear the old saw that “money can’t buy love” … we all know that the truth is a bit more nuanced.
Occasionally I run across an opinion piece that’s absolutely letter-perfect in terms of what it’s communicating.
This time it’s a column by marketing über-specialist Gord Hotchkiss that appeared this week in MediaPost … and he hits all the right notes in a piece he’s headlined simply: WTF Tech.
Here is Hotchkiss’ piece in full:
By Gord Hotchkiss , Featured Contributor, MediaPost
Do you need a Kuvée?
Wait. Don’t answer yet. Let me first tell you what a Kuvée is: It’s a $178 wine bottle that connects to WiFi.
Ok, let’s try again. Do you need a Kuvée?
Don’t bother answering. You don’t need a Kuvée.
No one needs a Kuvée. The earth has 7.2 billion people on it. Not one of them needs a Kuvée. That’s probably why the company is packing up its high-tech bottles and calling it a day.
A Kuvée is an example of WTF Tech. Hold that thought, because we’ll get back to that in a minute.
So, we’ve established that you don’t need a Kuvée. “But that’s not the point,” you might say. “It’s not whether I need a Kuvée. It’s whether I want a Kuvée.” Fair point. In our world of ostentatious consumerism, it’s not really about need — it’s about desire. And lord knows many of the most pretentious and entitled a**holes in the world are wine snobs.
But I have to believe that, buried deep in our lizard brain, there is still a tenuous link between wanting something and needing something. Drench it as we might in the best wine technology can serve, there still might be spark of practicality glowing in the gathering dark of our souls. But like I said, I know some real dickhead wine drinkers. So, who knows? Maybe Kuvée was just ahead of the curve.
And that brings us back to WTF tech. This defines the application of tech to a problem that doesn’t exist — simply because it’s tech. There is no practical reason why this tech ever needs to exist.
Besides the Kuvée, here are some other examples of WTF tech:
The Kérastase Hair Coach
This is a hairbrush with an Internet connection. Seriously. It has a microphone that “listens” while you brush your “hear,” as well as an accelerometer, gyroscope and other sensors. It’s supposed to save you from bruising your hair while you’re brushing it. It retails for “under $200.”
The Hushme Mask
This tech actually does solve a problem, but in a really stupid way. The problem is obnoxious jerks that insist on carrying on their phone conversation at the top of their lungs while sitting next to you. That’s a real problem, right? But here’s the stupid part. In order for this thing to work, you have to convince the guilty party to wear this Hannibal Lecter-like mask while they’re on the phone. Go ahead, buy one for $189 and give it a shot next time you run into a really loud tele-jerk. Let me know how it works out for you.
Denso Vacuum Shoes
“These boots are made for sucking, and that’s just what they’ll do.”
Finally, an invention that lets you shoe-ver your carpet. That’s right, the Japanese company Denso is working on a prototype of a shoe that vacuums as you walk, storing the dirt in a tiny box in the shoe’s sole. As a special bonus, they look just like a pair of circa 1975 Elton John Pinball Wizard boots.
When You’re a Hammer…
We live in a “tech for tech’s sake” time. When all the world is a high-tech hammer, everything begins to look like a low-tech nail. Each of these questionable gadgets had investors who believed in them. Both the Kuvée and the Hushme had successful crowd-funding campaigns. The Hair Coach and the Vacuum Shoes have corporate backing.
The dot-com bubble of 2000-2002 has just morphed into a bunch of broader-based — but no less ephemeral — bubbles.
Let me wrap up with a story. Some years ago, I was speaking at a conference and my panel was the last one of the day. After it wrapped, the moderator, a few of the other panelists and I decided to go out for dinner. One of my co-panelists suggested a restaurant he had done some programming work for.
When we got there, he showed us his brainchild. With much pomp and ceremony, our waiter delivered an iPad to the table. Our co-panelist took it and showed us how his company had set up the wine list as an app. Theoretically, you could scroll through descriptions and see what the suggested pairings were. I say theoretically, because none of that happened on this particular night.
Our moderator watched silently as the demonstration struggled through a series of glitches. Finally, he could stay silent no longer. “You know what else works, Dave? A sommelier,” he said. “When I’m paying this much for a dinner, I want to talk to a f*$@ng human.”
Sometimes, there’s just not an app for that.
Does Gord Hotchkiss’ column resonate with you as it did me? Feel free to leave a comment for the benefit of other readers if you wish.
When it comes to online retailing in the United States, Amazon’s been cleaning up for years. And now we have new data from comScore that reveals that Amazon is as dominant online today as it’s ever been.
This chart illustrates it well:
The chart shows that when comparing actual time spent by Americans at each of the Top 10 online retailers, Amazon attracts more viewing time than the other nine entities combined.
Even when considering only mobile minutes, where so much of the growth is happening for digital retailers, Amazon’s mobile viewing time exceeds the combined total digital traffic across eBay, Walmart, Wish, Kohl’s and Etsy.
Pertaining to the mobile sphere, there is an interesting twist that comScore has found in consumer behavior. It turns out, there’s a considerable disparity between the amount of time spent with mobile compared to its share of dollars spent – to the tune of a 40% gap:
In essence, the data show that whereas mobile represents nearly two-thirds of the time spent with online retail, it accounts for only one-fourth of the dollars spent on goods and services.
But this difference is easy to explain: As the largest player in the field, Amazon fulfills a role similar to what Expedia or Trivago do in the travel industry.
Amazon gives consumers a way to scan the marketplace not only for product details but also for prevailing prices, giving them a sense of the expected price ranges for products or services — even if they ultimately choose to purchase elsewhere.