Anyone that has driven west across South Dakota knows about a little drug store called Wall Drug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Drug  Located in the diminutive town of Wall, South Dakota, Wall Drug is resident Ted Husted’s tourist destination through nothing less 50-years of brilliant self-promotion.  The initial promotion started back in the 1930’s. As Wikipedia reports, “Business was very slow until his wife, Dorothy, got the idea to advertise free iced water to parched travelers along the road. From that time on business was brisk. Wall Drug grew into an enormous cowboy-themed shopping mall/department store.” By 1981 they reported serving over 20,000 cups of ice water per day, which is pretty impressive for a little town of 231 residents.

(If you haven’t heard of Wall Drug’s promotions, my friends further south tell me it is similar to the “See Rock City” campaigns for this icon in Chattanooga, TN).

I was reminded of Wall Drug recently while out driving in south-western Minnesota, some 500 miles from Wall, SD. They had a little road sign near the highway saying something like: “Been to Wall Drug lately?”  By erecting billboards across neighboring states, Wall Drug has created itself as a destination. The closer you get to Wall on highway 90 the more billboards you will see. Nearly every mile or two you’ll see a billboard ranging from 2’ x 3’ to 50’ x 80’ reminding you to visit Wall Drug.

But, they also use their billboard strategy across the world. One billboard in Amsterdam read: “5397 Miles to Wall Drug.” That concept got me thinking, is it really effective to post a billboard over 5,000 miles from a brick-n-mortar store?

For the most part, the folks at Wall Drug are direct marketers. They have “profiled” me by the fact that I’m in a car driving toward Wall, likely a hot/stuffy one, and I just may need a break. They’ve exploited the fact that I’m probably weary of the repetitive (albeit beautiful) scenery of middle South Dakota. And, they’ve taken this a step further by posting signs in nearby states, assuming at some point I’ll be that guy in the car and I’ll need a break when I’m driving to Mount Rushmore. Also, they’ve taken that a step further by branding themselves across the globe, presumably such that future international tourists will stop on their way to Mount Rushmore to see what all the fuss is about.

In the automobile days of the 50’s throughout the 90’s a billboard was a great way to make an impact on a new audience. As Americans begin to drive less due to fuel costs, what will replace the Great American Billboard? Can email be the answer?

Since over 95% of the population uses email, it has developed the reach and importance in our daily lives to allow marketers to create an online brand that scales much beyond what you might predict, much like Wall Drug has using older methods. Here’s the difference, the reach is actually bigger and isn’t limited to likely buyers based on proximity or chance. In fact, the timely nature and targeting capabilities of an email program integrated with other web technologies brings us opportunities for customer interactions the world has yet to see. Take concepts such as “out of stock” notifications, or “single use coupons” delivered via email, for an example. This is like Wall Drug beaming a coupon to approaching cars or catching them on the way back from Rushmore with a “now in stock” message. Try that with a billboard!

My pal Morgan Stewart recently presented some of these concepts at eTail East 2008 in Washington, D.C., and the folks at catalog success wrote about it. Great stuff!
See: http://www.catalogsuccess.com/story/story.bsp?sid=115096&var=story&3970

We launched our “List Detective” back in 2002 to help our clients detect and eliminate unknown or dead addresses at the time they upload them to our system. List hygiene is still critical in 2008. In fact, Return Path’s Q2 2008 Reputation Benchmark report shows that just a single hit to a spam trap (an address that is on your list and shouldn’t be) can cause serious deliverability problems.

Stephanie Miller of Return Path wrote in her recent MediaPost article: “…the study found that legitimate commercial servers with even one spam trap hit saw their deliverability rate plunge to 38% versus 58% for servers with no spam trap hits. Similarly, IPs that appeared on even one of the top nine public blacklists had a deliverability rate of 35% versus 58% for mailers not listed on any of these blacklists.”

How do you minimize the risk of having a spamtrap on your list?  First, use explicit opt-in methods (unchecked boxes) when you capture names. To be doubly sure – use double opt-in, where the subscriber has to confirm their address before they are actually added to your list. Second, scrub your list from bounces regularly. Your boss may be angry in the short-run that your list is shrinking, but he’ll thank you later for higher deliverability and ROI.

Question:

"I have been looking to seek some clarification on CAN SPAM. Suppose I visit the website of a business, get their email address, and send them a mail with soliciting partnership - would this be illegal under CAN SPAM?"

Response:

I first want to remind everyone that I am not a lawyer and not able to dispense legal advice, and it is always good practice to consult with your own counsel. 

In regard to the question asked, though CAN-SPAM does call out “automated address harvesting” as an aggravated violation, I don’t believe you are referring to collecting email address in mass volume using an automated process (e.g. - web-crawling “spider”). Assuming you are referring to finding an email address on a web site, then sending an email to that address that is business related this would not being illegal under CAN-SPAM. However, if it is a business related message requesting a partnership, I would guess that you’d be discussing the goods and services you sell, thus making that email a commercial email message, which is regulated under CAN-SPAM. This would mean that your email must include three key things; a notice of advertising or solicitation, your physical mailing address, and a reply address or other web-based mechanism to accept opt-outs.

Also, the recent FTC ruling stating that individuals are not exempt from CAN-SPAM, meaning that the law would apply to you or your small business, and similarly to non-profits, etc.

With that said, sending an unsolicited email still isn’t a best practice. Also, like spam, it is likely to get blocked, filtered or ignored. If you really have something to be proud of in your offer for partnership, my recommendation would be to pick up the phone. Then, once you speak to the person you are trying to connect with and get their approval to send them email, your chance of success via email will be much greater.

In the 1970’s dystopian sci-fi thriller, Soylent Green, Charlton Heston, upon discovering the secret source of the green tablets he and his fellow earth inhabitants have ingesting, declares, “Soylent Green is PEEEEEPLE!”  I conjure this obscure piece of Hollywood’s past to make the point that most email marketers treat their email lists in a similar way. Most look past their individual customers and treat their list as a discrete unit, as if it is an undifferentiated blob. To these marketers I want to say, “Email lists are PEEEEPLE!”

We’ve found that marketers are most successful, and optimize deliverability and their email reputation when they stop looking at their email lists as a single, monolithic, undifferentiated blob and begin treating it as a collection of discrete individuals, each with their own preferences for content, frequency and channel.

Let’s break that down. This has to do with deliverability, because deliverability success is ultimately in the hands of your reputation as a sender.  Send email that people want and you’ll have good deliverability. It really is as simple as that. To do that, you have to give the power back to the subscriber.

In our upcoming webinar with Forrester Research, we’re hoping to demonstrate some of the forces that are driving the control of the one-to-one marketing relationship out of the hands of the marketer…and into the hands of the subscriber. It’s a four-part story.

First, each subscriber “votes” with their permission (they ask to receive emails from you). As it turns out, it is the fact that the subscriber raises their hand and “asks” to become part of a dialog with you that is the best determining element of whether or not an email marketer will be successful at building their email reputation, and in turn, optimizing their email deliverability.

Second comes content. Did you make the effort to capture additional information about the preferences of each subscriber, or monitor their behavior via website analytics to determine what they like? Or, did you just decide that blasting the same message to your entire list was the best practice? Guess which method works best.

Third, is frequency or the rate at which a marketer sends their promotional emails. Our recent data shows that marketers have good reason to set appropriate expectations with their subscribers for email frequency – and then live up to them. In fact, one of our retail clients recently showed that they can actually entice formerly non-responsive subscribers to “reengage” (open, click and buy) by reducing the frequency of their emails. Counter intuitive? Maybe. Subscriber-friendly? Yes!

Fourth is channel. In today’s iPhone world, consumers have the choice of multiple messaging and marketing channels (email, phone, SMS, social networks, RSS, Twitter…and the list goes on). Our 2008 Channel Preference Survey showed that consumers may prefer one channel for messaging, and another for marketing. Yep, even teens like permission-based email!

Want to improve your email deliverability?  Improve it subscriber by subscriber by asking them what they want, when they want it, and via what channel they want it. All of our research and data says you won’t be sorry.

Perhaps I’m a bit late to the party, but it takes me a while to digest things at 42. In fact, that’s the whole point of this post. MediaPost’s Email Insider Summit in Captiva Island, Florida last month began with a panel of college students from Ball State (from our own Muncie, Indiana). The panel discussed how students use electronic/messaging media, what channels they use (email, Facebook, SMS, Twitter, etc.) and why they prefer certain communication channels for certain tasks. Admittedly, I went into the session without any defined expectations – but I was blown away. In fact, the student panel pretty much stole the show.

First, most of us were literally on the edge of our seats wondering what they would say about email. Would they say it’s outdated, overrated, never to be used again? Is it time for those of us in the industry to update our resumes and start looking for new careers? In all my years in email marketing, I’ve never seen so many professionals from the industry on edge…just wondering what will happen next year when all the teens embrace social networks.

Second -- and perhaps I just need to get out more -- the audience was entranced by these college kids like they were a novelty. I presented our Subscribers Rule concept over lunch on day 1 of the conference and said, “When I was 22 years old, I didn’t know or talk to anyone who was 42. And now that I’m 42, I don’t know or talk to anyone who is 22….”  I’m probably not the only email marketer who feels this way. All of us aging Gen X-ers or Babyboomers were eying the panel as if they were from another planet. However, I think we all recognized these college panelists were very much the center of what is happening to the digital, one-to-one communications landscape.

What struck me most was how each of them used media differently than I do. For a while, in fact, it seemed like a conference on social media, sponsored by Facebook. One panelist didn’t consider herself technical and said that her most important device was her cell phone. Beyond that, Facebook was important, but so was email. Another panelist, with a more technical focus, felt that if it was a casual communication, he’d just twitter or text (SMS) it, but if it was “important” -- like a communication regarding a job interview with those of us from the other world of working adults -- then email made sense.

Anyway, it all fit our hunch that consumer/subscriber preferences are more important than ever.. Everyone has their own preferences—for brand, content, frequency and medium. In the new world, SUBSCRIBERS RULE!.

For more information on subscriber preferences, download our new SUBSCRIBER RULES! Whitepaper: 2008 Channel Preference Survey

The Federal Trade Commission has approved four new rule provisions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM). The information below provides an overview of the new rule provisions. ExactTarget recommends consulting your own counsel to learn how these changes specifically impact your email program.

The new rule provisions address four topics: 

1. Unsubscribe Requirements: In the new rules, the FTC states that an email recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her email address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply email message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future email from a sender. This will impact senders that currently require their subscribers to provide a password or visit more than one web page to unsubscribe. We recommend marketers utilize a tool like ExactTarget’s One-Click Unsubscribe mechanism or link directly to their subscription center to manage unsubscribes.
2. Definition of “Sender:” Under CAN-SPAM, a “sender” is defined as the entity whose goods or services are advertised in a commercial email message. The new rules provide a clearer definition of “sender,” and make it easier to determine which of multiple parties advertising in a single email message is responsible for complying with the Act’s opt-out requirements. Those mailing on behalf of other advertisers or including advertising in their messages should take note of these changes. Generally speaking, the new rules state that the sole sender appearing in the from line of the email becomes the designated sender of the message, and therefore must comply with all provisions of the Act (such as listing a physical postal address and providing an opt-out mechanism).
3. Post Office Box Allowed: A “sender” of commercial email can include an accurately-registered post office box or private mailbox to satisfy the Act’s requirement that a commercial email display a “valid physical postal address.”
4. Liability Clarifications: The definition of the term “person” was added to clarify that CAN-SPAM’s obligations are not limited to natural persons. This essentially means that the scope of the Act includes individuals, groups, unincorporated associations, corporations, and non-profits. There is no exemption from CAN-SPAM for any of these groups.
   Also, the FTC commented on other items that were not yet issued as formal rules. These include:

• CAN-SPAM’s definition of “transactional or relationship message.”
• The Commission’s decision not to alter the length of time a “sender” of commercial email has to honor an opt-out request, which is currently 10 business days.
• The determination not to designate additional “aggravated violations” under the Act.
• The Commission’s views on how CAN-SPAM applies to “forward-to-a-friend” email marketing campaigns. The FTC explains that, as a general matter, if the seller offers something of value in exchange for forwarding a commercial message, the seller must comply with the Act’s requirements, such as honoring opt-out requests.

Please see http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/canspam.shtm for more information.

I had a great time attending and presenting at the Email Evolution Conference in San Diego last week. For starters, you can’t argue with the 80-degree warmer temperatures than I have at home in Minneapolis, but the content and expertise of the attendees at this conference was unprecedented.

Chad White of the EEC just posted his picks for the main takeaways from the conference. After reading this, I noticed a general theme throughout all of the takeaways – list growth and relevance. These two topics/concepts have really dominated the airwaves recently, and for good reason.

Also, list growth and relevance goals are very intertwined. Why? First, lists are made up of people, right?  Simple concept, but this is lost on many marketers. To effectively entice each person on to your list you have to be offering something (information, products, deals, community) that this specific individual is looking for and interested in. Common sense right? Perhaps, but then why don’t more marketers stick with this simple truth? More are interested in saying what they want to say rather than tailoring the pitch by audience.

The same thing goes for relevance. To communicate with people effectively, you have to first be able and willing to say something that each specific someone is willing to hear…and continue with that relevant information over time by interacting with them, watching how they respond and behave to drive the right messaging at the right time and medium.

In my presentation I mentioned that our internal statistics show that the size of a list is more predictive of response rate than any other measure, be it category (B2B/B2C), or industry (retail, news, travel, etc.). That isn’t to say that some senders with millions of addresses on their list can’t have great response rate, it is that they achieve that right by communicating to smaller segments of customers --- or really, smaller lists, and ultimately individuals.

Please see what I mean if you haven’t read Chad’s article yet. Whether it is rewarding loyal customers, as Pepsi has done, taking personalization advice of Scene 7 or authenticating your emails to protect your brand…at the end of the day it is all about making an appeal to an individual’s wants and needs. Didn’t the term “blasting” die yet?  Please let 2008 be the year.

Lots of thought has been given to triggered email marketing in recent articles. What I’m referring to is primarily triggering based on a customer activity (purchase, site visit, cart abandonment, email open, click, etc.), or a subscription or time event (birthday, subscription end date, card expiration, etc.). Why the buzz? These emails are effective.

 

One of the main reasons these emails are so compelling to customers, often achieving opens and click rates far above average, is that these communications by their very nature are relevant. In David Baker’s article, "Triggered Messaging 101," he points out that “Customers do appreciate good messaging, creative thought and timing that is appropriate.” Why is that? It is because we’re responding to customer behavior and information we have to drive the best possible message, the most valuable message, to a customer at any one time. Why, then, are so many marketers ignoring customer events and behavior when sending messages?  This holiday season seems to be the worst on record for email promotion uber-frequency.

 

Retailers are especially guilty of driving emails far too frequently, often far above the expectations expected by their subscribers—leading to higher unsubscribe and complaint rates, as well as a higher "ignore rate." The ignore rate, a stat I just made up, may be the most important driver to email campaign success. It means a large percentage of subscribers begin to ignore you, treating your email like BACN (email they wanted at one time, but don’t have time for any longer). The ignore rate can be detected by the declining open and click rates these retailers are likely seeing as they begin to pummel their once loyal subscribers with a thrice weekly email during the holiday season. It hurts me to watch the carnage they are unknowingly inflicting upon their response rates.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not an idealist. I have been the marketing guy on the hook to meet quarterly sales numbers. I know there is immense pressure to make sales numbers, especially during the holiday season. Unwittingly, however, by focusing on only short-term sales these marketers are actively reducing the value of their biggest asset…their subscriber list.

 

That’s why we’ve developed reports enabling our clients to more easily analyze customer engagement. Engaged customers open and click on your emails. Non-engaged customers don’t do anything. They just ignore you.

Happy Holidays!

Chip Heath, author of “Made to Stick” was a keynote speaker at our Connections ’07 User Conference this past week. In addition to sharing a first name (I may be a bit biased here) I think Chip and I have other affinities. Among many other enlightening items, he spoke about the “Curse of Knowledge” which is the inability of experts to describe what they do in an effective or compelling manner. Or, rather in a way that a lay person would understand easily what the heck one is talking about. Effective and compelling, mind you, is what marketing is supposed to be…isn’t it?  So, perhaps I’m speaking to a few industry-types here, but as we all digest our weekly dose of e-marketing jargon and speak of relevance, targeting, multivariate testing, etc….are we losing sight of the ability to really be effective communicators?

I think too often as marketers we lose sight of a simple fact: The customer wants to know what is “in it” for them. They ultimately define relevance, we don’t. What we have to say is almost irrelevant. What the customer wants to hear, learn, read, buy is the only thing that IS relevant. The customer’s opinion really is the only one that matters. Wait, I don’t think that sunk in: the customer’s opinion is the only opinion that matters. Too often we promote as our inventory would support, as our preset promotion calendar would have us promote, or as our newsletter content schedule would dictate.

So how do we do it right you ask? YOU LISTEN!

Fortunately listening using web, analytics and email technology means you don’t have to actually “listen” (though that helps too) – you need to observe and respect. Respect data. Respect preferences. Respect behavior. Customers are telling us what they want. Are we listening?