Why E-mailers Don’t Work

As the Internet spreads, the use of its capabilities to reach customers is

being developed in  different ways. Initial promises have been belied and

this has led to the erroneous conclusion that the medium’s potential was

grossly over-rated. That is far from the truth–the fact is that the medium has

been misused.

Take the case of e-mail, or more particularly e-mailers. Unsolicited e-mail

is seen as spam and marketers are extremely wary of using it. On the other hand,

direct mail in print continues to be an effective marketing tool. Technically,

there’s no difference between the two, both being unsolicited. In both cases,

permission has not been taken to use the address for advertising purposes. Both

are an intrusion on privacy. Then why is an e-mailer a worse option? From a

purely marketing perspective, it is a better option–it is far cheaper to send

out. It’s reach is global. It can use various media–image, sound and voice.

It offers easy return connect methodology, and customers can request more

information or services. What’s the problem, then?

Problem

number one is the problem of quantity–there are simply too many messages.

Because they are cheap, people send them out by the thousands. E-mailers exceed

direct mailers by a factor of 50, even 100. That makes them a problem. This is

because e-mailers are virtually free.

The second is that they are un-segmented, partially because they are cheap,

and partially because segmentation data is not available. So you get lower

interest rate offers from the US and lottery mailers from Germany. My

mother-in-law gets messages from porn sites and my daughter gets messages for

buying tax bonds. It makes them wary of all messages.

The third is that they are un-identifiable. If I get a paper mailer, there’s

an address. I feel secure about the product and the service. If I get an

e-mailer, there’s no way I can trace the offer back to the owner. Even if it

is good, I discount it.

The fourth is the ubiquitous culture factor–I am just not used to it. For

paper mailers, I have grown an immunity system. They do not irritate me. I

simply throw them away. And if they arrive in office, my staff is trained to

segregate the useful from the useless. I’m not immune to e-mailers yet.

The fifth is that too many people have told me this is spam and incorrect and

someone is invading my privacy. I have started believing it.

The sixth is that big names do not use this communication device. I don’t

get good offers from known companies. I only get junk offers from small

companies. If I got an offer from Mercedes, I would look at it more carefully–simply

because it is from Mercedes. Gradually, the credibility of all such offers would

increase. When I see only small, unknown names, I assume I am being offered

junk.

The seventh is that direct mailers are free for me. But I do pay for

downloading my mail. Even if the amounts are inconsequential, the time I spend

isn’t. And at first glance, the usefulness/uselessness are not easy to

distinguish. I get to work, download 50-odd messages in the bandwidth-hungry

morning hours, only to find that 40 of them are junk. I want to shoot someone.

The eight is that some of the clear advantages of this medium–the use of

multiple media, interactivity, instant response–still offer limited usability.

Speed and bandwidth remain an issue.

So where do we go from here? Is it goodbye to e-mailers? Not likely. The

medium is simply far to good to die out like that. It will grow as marketers

find answers to these issues and users start seeing benefits. If I start getting

more useful stuff, in more manageable numbers, on connections that do not make

me wait and I have been asked for permission to be sent these in the first

place, I would prefer e-mailers to paper mailers.

It will happen. Sooner, rather than later. In the meantime, those who try and

minimize the above issues stand a better chance of having their e-mailer read.

Shyam Malhotra



The author is Editor-in-Chief of Cyber Media, the publishers of Dataquest