The reality is that it’s a very cheap campaign. Basically, take your email, and send it again a few days later. Heck, send it a third time.
You can see that list fatigue sets in pretty quickly. For this, you have some options:
- change subject line
- suppress openers and clickers, or those that act on the email contents
- change header text on top of creative (the text right before the main message, called different things now, by various folks.)
Some demographics will support this more than others. I’ve heard from B2Bs that rarely have any negative feedback, but they re-pitch only with conference registrations, and other once-a-year or twice-a-year notifications.
For consumer and retail, it’s been spotty. Basically consumers really need the slightest excuse to unsubscribe, and once that happens you don’t get them back. Some of my clients use this rule- only do the re-engage campaign occasionally. Then, a significant portion of your base won’t consider this as a regular technique. You don’t want them to say “stop hammering me,” essentially. But the occasional re-issue is tolerated.
It’s a great way to increase response and repurpose creative. There are also other more effective ways without the negatives:
- lifecycle campaigns. Make one creative and email according to the consumer’s lifecycle, not your marketing calendar.
- re-activation campaigns. Re-use the most popular creative to bring back lapsed viewer/engagers. Send this out after no contact in 3/6/9 months, for example.
More Reading:
The Reminder Email, Does It Work?
Killing Off Inactive Subscribers
Terminology: Transactional, Lifecycle, Event-Based, Trigger
« Killing Off Inactive Subscribers – Blogging/Videocasting/Podcasting Basic Steps »
I’m not a huge fan of “the re-send” as you dubbed it here. I think it does have a place, but as you mention if done too frequently will lose some of the active emails you already have. I like the last option you mentioned a lot, which is reusing your most popular campaigns after some time. Why change up something that worked well?
Comment: Jake – 16. July 2009 @ 1:01 pm