site map

 

June 22, 2009 | Tate Linden
Things aren't good out there, are they?  No, they're not.

This has become abundantly clear in recent weeks as our email boxes have overflowed with offers and/or pleas for us to attend various conferences and events both in person and online.  Gone are the days of "Only Three Spots Left" a month before the event.  Just last week we received an email titled "Learn to talk to clients about money" from one of our favorite design magazines that seemed strangely familiar.  This stands to reason, since the title and contents were exactly the same as an email sent 13 days earlier by the same company.

Picture 72.png

The text in the first email blatantly stated that space was limited, implying we'd better hurry if we wanted a spot.  The second email similarly urged us to register now since space is still limited.  Because perhaps we'd forgotten...

Picture 73.png

No mention of how many limited spaces there were.  No mention of the total attendance. The creative community members - especially graphic designers - seem to be a very skeptical (or perhaps observant?) crowd.  They're paid to notice things.  Why would this repeat message go out - on the morning of the event - with no changes since the last blast?

If you're going to sell something in this economy... anything, really... you're going to do better working to relate with your audience than you are if you just broadcast a one way message and don't adapt to circumstances. 

It's a bit of a mantra in these parts, but I'll say it again.  "Please step away from the megaphone."  This double email promotion is an example of the sort of campaigns we at Stokefire rail against.  It seems to have involved figuring out what they thought the audience wants to hear and then saying it repeatedly until they either got what they wanted or figured that their megaphone must be broken.  There's no interaction, only "resistance is futile" messaging that the audience can't relate to.

The number one way for creatives to stay afloat in this economy is to establish a relationship with their prospective clients before the purchase decision is made.  This promotion seems to have done exactly the opposite.  The second email could've been a wonderfully candid discussion of either the low demand and what that implied, or perhaps a refocused piece that addressed the reasons why making the last-minute choice to participate was the right thing to do.

For those that think the double email was the right thing to do, we present the ever dependable thoughts of Mr. A. Einstein (or at least words attributed to him... we didn't know the guy personally.)

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We think Einstein was on to something.

We think Einstein was on to something.

We think Einstein was on to something.

(Do you think we're smart yet?  Because we can keep repeating it until you do.  Just try us.)


1 Comments
Aquarius Calypsos (Really) July 17, 2009 12:42 AM

I think you're both right and wrong.
Resending the same email surely is smarter than not sending anything. And I know from my own email campaigns that resending the same email often still gets good responses - probably because some people who just didn't read the first one.

Would it have been better to have the second email pitch the event in a different way? Yes, sure.

And repetition (engineered the right way) can make a difference, lots of experiments have confirmed this. Although in your case - receiving the same email that you already read and did not react to again, well, that's probably not done the right way.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply