2/8/2002 3:17:22 PM
Posted By:
Robert Spears
[reply to Brad Bradberry’s post]:Although I don't question that email is powerful, I am no longer as strong an advocate for its broad use in content delivery (and even less so for the daily delivery of news). (I am not referring to person-to-person communication but content-provider-to-customer). Several months ago I stopped relying on email newsletters as a “surfing and delivery" tool. Instead I keep my favorites window open at all times when I browse. (I use IE 5.x on a PC notebook with screen resolution of 1024x768 and the lost screen space has not been an issue). Each morning I open my News folder and click through between 10 and 20 sites. If I were to subscribe to 20 daily newsletters, my InBox would be unmanageable. In essence I use my Favorites window and folders as my “remote control” – something that the web has desperately needed. (I also use a personalized Yahoo! home page). I have no idea what percentage of people surf this way, but I would guess that it is very low. Since I use Hotmail, I have my favorites accessible while reading email, too. On a parallel note - I subscribe to satellite TV and have several hundred channels – I would be lost with out the channel guide. Likewise I am lost without my Favorites window.
Here are some miscellaneous comments grouped by interest group: Consumers:
Email is unquestionably widely adopted and valued. Consumers need ongoing help with SPAM – (e.g. legislation, tariffs to make it more expensive to send junk-mail; provide easy-to-use and effective InBox filters, improved email address privacy, etc) Daily email editorial newsletters are difficult to keep up with (e.g. they contribute to information overload, etc.). Open-rates are low (my experience show 10-20%). I would advocate one of two styles: 1) headline groks; or 2) short opinion pieces. In both cases, content should be sparse and easy to digest. Again, I no longer need to subscribe to “web-page” newsletters because of my use of my Favorites window. Daily service newsletters agents are effective (e.g. job searching, classifieds, auctions, etc.). They help consumers solve time-pressed problems and are easily managed. Weekly and monthly newsletters are very effective (e.g. they serve as nice reminders and do not overwhelm the InBox). They can serve both marketing and editorial purposes simultaneously. Without them consumers would suffer from “out of sight - out of mind” syndrome. Email news alerts need refinement (e.g. they offer a pandora’s box of potential – too much or too general is not effective, etc.) Content Providers: Email costs: Paradoxically I think it should cost companies marketing via SPAM significantly more to send email and less so for opt-in newsletter providers. I find it interesting that I am less concerned giving my mailing address to companies than I am giving my email address. The reason is - it costs companies a lot more money to send junk mail than it does to send junk email. On the other hand, email has hidden costs that come with popularity (e.g. ISP costs, 3rd party email delivery charges, production and management resources, etc). Bottom line - email is not free and some of the cost should be passed to consumers. Email as traffic generator: Sure this works, but what is the point of bringing more people to unprofitable sites? (to serve more house-ads and pay more for ISP and delivery?) Email’s Relationship with Sites: To me email and websites are two sides of the same beast - the beast being content and services. They are two delivery channels (others include print, pda, phone, pdf, etc.). And yes, the web is a delivery channel. Even an email subscriber has to click on the subject line of an email to read it. (It is just as easy for me to click on a bookmark in my Favorites window).
|
