I’ve written about the use of email by the Democratic Party and by the White House before, but I think their practices need to be revisited just a bit.
Politically, I lean Democrat. And I, like many Democratic-leaning folks out there, am absolutely sick of the party’s so-called leadership and their lack of ability to get anything done. And if you ever wanted to get an indication of how off kilter they are, just take one look at my inbox:
Not counting the 4-5 emails I deleted before realized I could write a post about this, I count 11 email messages in the past month from SEVEN senders. Before I get into the crux of my post here, let’s examine for a minute what’s wrong with this picture:
- Seven senders in 11 email messages. John Caldwell blasted “Sender Roulette” as he calls it. I can’t stand it either. I don’t know who Colleen Turrentine, Ben Metcalf, or Emily DeRose are. And I bet you many people don’t know who David Plouffe or James Carville are (I do; I’m like that). And there’s something to be said for a lack of credibility of sender when it’s Obama himself as the From Name–Just sayin’.
- Subject lines are vague or nonsensical. “110 times.” For what? “Where we stand.” On what? “2009.” Very good, you know the year. “It starts with you.” What does? I’d love to see the metrics on their opens. It can’t be very good. Not with those subject lines.
Now that I’ve got that out of my system, let’s talk segmentation. Clearly, the Democrats don’t use segmentation. It’s clear they don’t, because their so-called preference center doesn’t allow for changes in preference:
And their unsubscribe page isn’t much better (seen below). In fact, I say it’s worse. A “Donate Now” button on the unsubscribe page? Really? And no pre-populated email address? Surely you guys have the IT infrastructure to support that function.
On the Email Experience Council Blog, DJ Waldow wrote his four reasons why email segmentation matters:
1. Reduces inbox clutter: Assuming the emails were the same, would you rather receive 3 or just 1?
2. Increases relevancy: The more relevant an email, the more likely I am to take action (open, click, convert)
3. Earns trust: If I believe that you – the email marketer – have my best interests in mind, I’ll trust you more. More trust ultimately leads to more action (see #2).
4. Gain credibility: Good segmentation proves to me that you know what you are doing. It shows that you are not blasting off emails. Instead, you are putting thought behind each send.
I don’t typically open the messages from the Democratic Party. In fact, I designated their messaging to what equates to my spam inbox email address. If the Democrats were smart email marketers, they would have a send list for the engaged recipients (namely NOT me), and for those who are just along for the ride (me). After all, it’s about the customer experience, and right now, my experience is pretty lacking in terms of relevance.
Ages ago, Sally Lowery wrote on the Bronto Blog about why email marketers need to think about the customer experience. Lowery wrote:
Your company can differentiate itself through its customer experience. Your email marketing can influence perceptions, preferences, and predispositions toward additional purchases. Customer experience, relevance, and timing all go hand in hand to create a meaningful dialogue between you and your customer.
What’s my perception of the Democrats’ email practices? Shoddy at best.
What’s my predisposition toward helping the cause? Let’s just say I have better ways to spend my money, thank you very much.
Remember, as I wrote a while back:
- Respect your customer
- Segment your audience
- It’s about relationships
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Scott,
As I tweeted, thanks for putting the word out there, especially to these non-profit, government type groups the need to consolidate under one from name! I have gotten so many emails from “celebrities” and random people at organizations that it boggles the mind.
With that said, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing to have a donation call to action on the unsubscribe page. Just because you don’t want my emails (assuming that you’re not unsubbing because you think I’m sending spam), doesn’t mean you don’t want to help my cause. I’ve actually seen positive results with clients that utilize this type of messaging (donate, engage through other means) on the unsubscribe page. Just my thoughts though. Happy to hear why you’re not a fan.
-Kelly
Kelly Lorenz´s last blog ..KNLorenz: Thx, @scottcohen13 for reinforcing the need to utilize ONE from line and to think (more) smartly about subject lines: http://bit.ly/4WtvM9
Kelly: Thanks for your comment. I can see the value in offering a donation mechanism on a unsubscribe page, provided that the page allows for other engagement. The unsubscribe page described above does have that function in the right column, but would probably be better served with a better preference center. I should also get the option to throttle my messages, if they don’t want to do the segmentation themselves.
could not agree more! I unsubscribed from all the Obama/political lists I was on for this reason (some of the same ones you’re subscribed to) ~ I was constantly getting emails from either people who, like you said, I had no idea who they were, or from “Obama.” Ha! Not only did I not know/care who the sender was, but they didn’t have ANY segmentation so once in a while I would get something related to the issues I was concerned with, but the rest of the time I was getting emails about things I a). didn’t care about or b). didn’t even agree with. I WANTED to be supportive of the causes and engaged with the party and administration I helped put into office, so I gave them a years’ worth of chances … but I just couldn’t take it any more!
Alexis: Thanks for stopping by and commenting. It’s funny how the Democratic Party is alienating their own base with their email marketing practices, isn’t it? I hope they’ll shape up and starting respecting their customers a bit more. But then that would involve politicians who actually care about what the public thinks/wants, wouldn’t it? But that’s a discussion for another blog post.
Scott,
Great post! While I am not subscribed to any politic-related emails, I am subscribed to quite a few non-profit organizations and there’s a couple that do it well, but for the most part they could all use some help.
I am surprised they don’t give more attention to their emails really. Perhaps they’ll stumble upon this post! ~Wendy
Wendy: Thanks for commenting! I think with the non-profit organizations, it’s a matter of resource allocation. Non-profits aren’t exactly rolling in dough, so things like email marketing may get left behind. But the Democratic Party really has no excuses for that, particularly given the obscene amounts of money Obama raised during the campaign (and still raises today). Hopefully they will stumble upon this post. I may even listen to a job offer…
Great point Scott! I mean they’re “Big Brother” for God’s sake, you’d think they would have all of your info prepopulated
I did applaud Obama’s social marketing and advertising online, but I do agree, the emails suck.
Rory: Absolutely. Disappointing a bit that they don’t go “Big Brother” in this case. After all, as Chris Rock says in “Head of State,” “We’re the government, we can do anything.” Obviously a missed step here.
I agree with you that Obama’s social marketing and advertising online are/were fantastic. It’s a shame the emails are so unsophisticated by comparison.
Here’s the thing – they don’t care….
They are going to do whatever they want to do and if you don’t like it you need to just STFU and get on the bus while you throw your industry under it http://www.clickz.com/3630586
John Caldwell´s last blog ..Email Vendor Features & Functions Guide
John,
agreed. Just another example of what not to do. Email is pretty indicative of their attitude toward people’s wishes in prety much everything else.