Open rates – what about accuracy?

Open rates are a basic measure of email marketing success. However, there are (at least) two problems with them: accuracy and standardization. Continue reading

All-clear: Tabbed Gmail doesn’t affect (my) click rates. What about yours?

Did you notice some alarmism lately? Gmail introduced a new inbox, which auto-sorts emails into tabs. Marketers fear, their emails become less visible and response rates drop now that they are filed under a promotions tab. After all, Gmail is one of the two biggest email providers. (The other one is good old Outlook.com/Hotmail.)

So… do those marketers have a reasonable concern? Continue reading

How schema.org markup improves double opt-in

Do you remember Gmail actions? Google presented them about 7 weeks ago. Actions are based on schema.org markup in emails, which allows email clients or even search engines to better understand what emails are about. Email clients then can use this information to improve the user experience. Continue reading

Slides: „E-Mail von Tante Emma“ (M3 CAMPIXX 2013)

Am 15. und 16. Juni 2013 fand die erste M3 CAMPIXX Konferenz statt. „M3“ steht für „Marketing 3.0“. Erklärtes Ziel dieser nächsten Stufe soll sein, Menschen absolut in den Mittelpunkt zu rücken. Nicht nur auf Kundenseite, sondern auch auf Seiten der Werbetreibenden.

Wie diese Denke ins E-Mail-Marketing passen könnte, zeigte der Workshop „E-Mail von Tante Emma“. Die Vortragsfolien finden sich hier: Continue reading

Inbox overload? Increasing email volumes? Here’s the truth.

Users complain about inbox overload. Email marketing evangelists on the other hand pride themselves with new record heights every year. So advertisers are to “blame”, aren’t they? Well, not so fast. Continue reading

How PayPal (really) hit the email oops gallery

Digital direct marketing is fast-paced. Thus, things can easily go wrong. We have seen the New York Times sending emails to 8 million subscribers instead of 300. We have also seen Mini stuffing people’s inboxes with hundreds of newsletters by mistake.

And speaking of such severe failures – here is what PayPal sent to many (or even all?) of its 20 million German accounts lately… Continue reading

Gmail’s new inbox: Email marketing myth busting

Many email marketing bloggers commented on Gmail’s new inbox last week. I have been able to use it since day two after its announcement in both of my accounts. (In fact, I already used it before; the new inbox is a revamp of a labs feature called Smartlabels that I blogged about two years ago.) Since mailers speculate on what the Gmail future golds for them, here is some myth busting – with regards to what my Gmail-inboxes in Germany look like today: Continue reading

Simplest scientific split test calculator for email senders [Tool]

splittestcalcImagine that before your next newsletter goes out, you want to know which one of your two call to action ideas attracts more clicks: “Buy now!” (a) or “See more!” (b). Therefore, you conduct a split a/b pretest. One hour later, the results are in. Within your control group (a), 100 of 1.000 recipients clicked a link. The test group (b) reveals a 15% unique click rate – i.e. even 150 recipients clicked…

Question: Can call to action (b) really attribute for +50 clickers, or was the difference in click rates between (a) and (b) due to chance?
And what, if we compared a 10% to a 11% unique click rate? Or if we’d check 200 versus 220 unique opens? Or 10 vs. 20 unsubscribes? Continue reading

Leaks in your email response mechanics? Better check.

Why is it that only 84% of marketing emails make it into the recipients’ inboxes? And why do only 20% hit an email open? Many leaks lurk on each stage of the response mechanics. Those stages are: 1. Delivery, 2. open, 3. click, and 4. conversion. Can we plug the holes, so that our customer relationships flourish? Continue reading

What’s your best email frequency? Here’s the math

Some weeks ago, I asked my subscribers: What does sending more emails mean to you – more revenue or less subscriber lifetime value? The answers have been 50/50. And surely, there is a lot of evangelism on both sides. Some literally praise to send more for years. Others raise their subscribers permission shields and warn that such attitude in the market might kill email in the long run. All in all, both don’t help marketers that much in finding their optimum email freq, do they?

Yesterday, I stumbled across an article from John Foreman, data scientist at MailChimp. He showed how to determine the best emailing frequency in an objective manner. I liked that. So here is what he found – plus a little add-on: Continue reading