Yesterday, I reported that I would try an email experiment to discover if readers would be able to direct some referrals for advertising feature profiles in the Design and Construction Report. The early results: Failure.
I sent the email to readers who had asked to receive the bi-weekly Construction Marketing Ideas Newsletter, along with some who had entered or voted in the competition, for a total list of 1,660 names. (I expect there is much overlap in two lists.) So far, 400 individuals have opened the email, for an open rate of a little less than 25 per cent. Only four opted out, but disturbingly, three reported the email to be “spam”, among the highest spam ratings of any email I’ve sent in recent months. (Almost inevitably, even with 100 per cent permission-based emails, you will receive one or two spam complaints on a large mailing; but three is over the safe and reasonable level for a mailing of this size.)
Not surprisingly, no one responded with leads, referrals, or direct business, though several people took up the opportunity to view the site with the actual contest results, and I noticed a significant number of new “best blog” votes.
In a practical sense, if an emailing results in spam complaints and fails to generate profitable business, you cannot sugar coat the results. It didn’t work. It damaged my brand, reputation, and clearly the message did not resonate with readers.
Next questions: Why? And can we learn something from the experience?
Internet marketing guru Seth Godin has posted a couple of worthy entries on the distinction between permission-based and spam email campaigns, and (most significantly) this posting describing how to truly and effectively send a personal email. I (wrongly) sent the broadcast email to some people who voted in the best blog competition, but did not specifically request the newsletter. And I sent a selling email to people who had requested my newsletter, not an invitation to solicit referrals.
The second error, of course, is more subtle. I tried a personal “ask” in an impersonal email. This requires a big leap of faith in trust and communication and puts people in an uncomfortable spot.
As Godin reports, email is easy to send. You can put together a “blast campaign” in minutes, set up your list, and hit the “send” button to thousands of people, uninvited. You don’t feel the rejection — until you read the red number under “spam” on the Constant Contact report. Because email is so easy and inexpensive to send, it lacks friction; it lacks direct risk, and therefore, when you receive it, you really resent the intrusion if you haven’t requested the message. You are behaving largely like the telemarketer or door-to-door canvasser, but at least with these rather offensive marketing methods, you feel the pain of rejection. Of course, you can try to cop out by getting someone else to do your dirty work, but your brand is still mud.)
So what works?
Yesterday afternoon, I attended the monthly Ottawa Construction Specifications Canada chapter meeting. Ottawa Construction News is one of the chapter’s two corporate sponsors (we provide significant free advertising to the Chapter to promote its events and mission). After the speaker concluded his presentation, I proposed a feature in OCN, and he said “yes” instantly.
Here, we had all the elements of effective marketing and sales, rolled into one process. Relevant community/association involvement and support, coupled with direct connection and relationships with the people with whom we can do business, will do much more good than dozens of impersonal emails. (I could also tell, during the speech, that the presenter qualified for the publicity.)
Shortly before the CSC meeting, Tim Klabunde, founder of the Design and Construction Network, emailed me to ask if I had achieved success in obtaining referrals and features for the Design and Construction Report, the Network’s official publication.
I responded that we hadn’t achieved success yet, but “I’m a person who believes in rational persistence. That means I don’t bang my head up against a wall or throw good money after bad, but don’t give up easily when the risk is reasonable and the reward is great enough.”
Late last night, Chase emailed some interesting suggestions about marketing for the online publication He suggested heading in positive and generous direction, and I will follow his advice (it is always bad manners to quote inbound emails publicly without permission, so I won’t disclose the details here yet)
I’ve learned some important lessons in the past 24 hours.
