(Yes. I’m guilty of this, too.)
Odds are, whenever you read or hear about building your email marketing list, inevitably these words are uttered or written:
“Give them an incentive to subscribe.”
Often, marketers take this to mean something along the lines of a coupon or a freebie. “Join our email list and get 10% off your first order.” Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I have so many questions about this approach. Let’s start with this one: Have we marketers hardwired ourselves to think we have to offer tangible incentives (15% off)?
Better yet: Can an incentive be something other than a freebie? Can we “get away” with “selling” potential subscribers on other benefits of joining the list? Are the below benefits enough?
- Exclusive access. (I’ve written about the new socio-economic model being “Access and Opportunity”)
- Status. (This may have a lot to do with exclusive access, but perhaps status can be what you’re selling)
Can we answer the “What’s in it for me?” question without resorting to freebies? Or have we not only conditioned ourselves as marketers to acting that way, but our customers as well?
Perhaps the bigger sociological question here is, have we conditioned ourselves as a species to expect something for nothing?
You tell me.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Scott,
I do think that a “I deserve something for nothing” attitude is perceptible among people who spend time online. As a recent example, look at the flak Chris Brogan took for having the audacity to charge for information and his time (a webinar on Google+).
I often wonder how much of that attitude is marketers’ fault, though. In our drive – dare I say our desperation? – to maximize conversions, we give away a lot: coupons, free bonus products, and so on. (Just think about how ubiquitous free shipping is nowadays compared to say, 7-8 years ago.)
Yes, incentives “work” in that all other things being equal, adding an incentive typically increases response. But why do so many marketers accept that all other things must be equal? Why not first improve the offer before adding an incentive?
My $.02: improving the offer is harder and more time-consuming than slapping on an incentive, plus it’s risky (to a marketer’s career) to deviate from the accepted standard of offering an incentive. So we keep on adding incentives, and when we want to increase results further, we ramp up the incentive.
And so you have today’s consumer…
Justin: Absolutely. I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, and hence the post. It seems like in the big race to the “bottom,” we marketers have actually shot ourselves in the foot by having to be so reliant on special offers and freebies.
My view is unique in that working on the client side for a client that couldn’t rely on special offers (at least most of the time), I can see how a marketing campaign for a product/service could work without it. But, as is the case with everything in email, it depends on what you’re selling.
Or is it? That’s why I’m asking the questions. Thanks for chiming in!
I do think we’ve conditioned ourselves to expect freebies and discounts, and marketers should certainly keep in mind that building a list with such incentives results in less-than-engaged subscribers.
For example, I know folks (myself included, semi-shamefully) who have signed up for email newsletters with different email addresses in order to access a one-time sign-up bonus multiple times. Clearly we’re not in it for the ongoing content, and we’ve learned how to game the system.
The same principle applies to any incentive or discount-based marketing plan. Running sweepstakes/contests may help you build your list, but your audience is going to be 90% “sweepers.” What percentage of them are actually going to be engaged and convert? What percentage of them are going to mark your next email blast as spam?
It sounds like the best policy is to continually test what works. Test the design of your sign-up box, test your opt-in message, test your incentives (freebie, exclusive access or other). Pay attention to open, clickthrough and conversion rates.
Most importantly, as Justin said, continually improve your product/offer before letting an incentive do the work for you.
Hi Shayna: Thanks for commenting. Great point about how building a list with incentives typically leads to less-than-engaged subscribers. Your point about the sweepstakes speaks to my post over on the Inbox Group blog:
http://www.inboxgroup.com/blog/index.php/2011/07/email-marketing-and-social-media-contests-3-reasons-why-you-need-a-retention-plan/
Testing is always the key, right? And ultimately, it comes down to your product or service. Case and point: In my previous life, a co-worker and I decided to use a BOGO coupon at a local eatery. And even with going halves on the meal, the food was so terrible it didn’t matter how many coupons we got later.
Yep, you got it. Just think of those daily deal sites. Some people are hooked on scoring great discounts. The problem for the participating businesses is that people are loyal to the deals, not the businesses.
Consumers have so much choice these days. You’ve really got to stand out and prove your worth.
But, hey, if you can do it and really impress people, imagine how they’ll refer your business? It’s almost worth thinking of perfecting your product in this way: the better it is, the more happy customers you’ll have, and the more marketing they’ll do on your behalf…for free!
…a bit of a tangent from email marketing.