Relevance marketers versus data. Let the battle begin!
I read an article the other day from a relevance marketer – you know, the person who insists that your emails MUST be segmented and relevant in order to (a) be any good and (b) keep you out of deliverability hell.
There were two things that really confused me about the article. The first was that an email with a 60% open rate that generated 3,000 opens is better than one with a lower open rate that generated 4,500 opens. The difference in the cost of the send? Approximately $25. I don’t know about you but, as a marketer, I’d happily pay $25 to have 1500 people (who have already signed up for my list) to learn more about what I’m talking about. It works out to 1.6 cents per open. At a 10% click to open rate, it’s 16 cents per click – significantly cheaper than almost any other paid media. So while this author may “feel” that relevance is “better’, the data tells me it’s a no-brainer to send to the larger list. Even if it is less “relevant.”
The second thing that this article claimed was that larger lists will inevitably run into deliverability problems, as ISPs are actively looking at engagement as a metric for deciding who does and does not get into your inbox. Here’s my question…how can sending to people who’ve actively (or even passively) signed up for your email cause delivery problems? Can this assumption really be true?
One of the joys in being a digital/email marketer is that you don’t have to rely on opinion. You can simply run some numbers and decide for yourself. I pulled from our eDataSource inbox tracker (which is a completely awesome tool, btw) which uses a panel of several hundred thousand emails – across 335 different senders – and decided to see what the numbers have to say....