Email Marketing Metrics Guide: Data for marketers on email use & the activities and plans of mailers

MarketingSherpa’s

Email Marketing Metrics Guide: Data for marketers on email use & the activities and plans of mailers

Produced in partnership with

The Intermarket Group L.P. www.intermarketgroup.com

MarketingSherpa's Email Marketing Metrics Guide

This document is intended for electronic delivery

Copyright  2002 by MarketingSherpa Inc. All rights reserved. The entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by MarketingSherpa Inc. and may not be translated, reproduced for sale, stored in a publicly-accessible retrieval system, or posted on a website, except as provided for by Sections 107 and 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without prior written consent from the copyright owner. The charts, tables and data provided in this report are all sourced from publicly-available information produced by the attributed sources and remain the property of and are copyright by their respective owners. Requests for further information or for reprint permissions should be addressed to: Marketing Sherpa Inc., 1791 Lanier Place NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA. The following uses of this document are strictly prohibited: • Transmittal via the Internet or any other network • Reproduction for sale or for further distribution • Posting on a website, intranet or extranet site • Copying to CD-ROM, tape cartridge or similar portable media All information contained in this publication is believed to be obtained from reliable sources. The publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is engaged in offering legal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Published August 2002

Copyright © 2002 by Marketing Sherpa Inc. All Rights Reserved.

1


Table Of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................... 2 List of Charts and Tables .......................................................... 3 Executive Summary .................................................................5 Section I.

Who Uses The Internet And Email .......................9

Section II.

How Do Internet Users Use Email ......................18

Section III. Email Marketing Activity......................................41 Section IV. Opt-In Email List Building....................................55 Section V.

Email Marketing To House Lists .........................67

Section VI. Third Party Email Lists And Newsletter Sponsorships ....................................86

Appendix

Data Sources And Contact Information ............102


2


List of Charts And Tables Email Marketing Plans For 2002 12-Month Trend In Opt-In Email Open Rates 12-Month Trend In Opt-In Email Click Rates Opt-In Email Activity Among Internet Users 1.01 Most Popular Online Activities At Home And At Work (2001) 1.02 Internet Users Who Send/Receive Email (2002) 1.03 U.S. Internet Population (1997-2006) 1.04 U.S. Internet Users Online In The Last 30 Days (2002) 1.05 Broadband Households In North America (2001/2003) 1.06 U.S. Mobile Wireless Data Subscribers (2002/2005) 1.07 Global Internet Population By Region (2002) 1.08 Breakdown Of Internet Population By Region (2002) 1.09 U.S. Internet Users By Gender (2002) 1.10 U.S. Internet Users By Household Income (2002) 1.11 Penetration Of Internet Access By Household Income (2002) 1.12 U.S. Internet Users By Age Group (2001) 1.13 Ethnic Background Of U.S. Internet Users (2001) 1.14 Education Of U.S. Internet Users (2002) 2.01 How Frequently Internet Users Check Their Email (2002) 2.02 How Frequently Internet Users Check Their Email (2001) 2.03 Sources Of Email Among Recipients At Home And At Work (2002) 2.04 Daily Email Volume Among Internet Users At Home And At Work (2001) 2.05 Daily Volume Of Email Advertisements (2001) 2.06 Growth In Commercial Email Volume Per Internet User (2000-2006) 2.07 Consumer Exposure To Online Marketing Messages (2001-2006) 2.08 Delivery Frequency Preferences Of Opt-In Email Users (2000/2002) 2.09 Number Of Email Addresses Per Online Shopper (2001) 2.10 Applications For Which Online Shoppers Create Email Addresses (2001) 2.11 Email Format Preferences Among Internet Users (2001/2002) 2.12 Internet User Attitudes Towards Rich Email Formats (2002) 2.13 Email Applications Used By Internet Users (2001) 2.14 Types Of Permission Email Received By Internet Users (2001) 2.15 Popularity Of Different Types Of Permission Email (2002) 2.16 How Do Internet Users Find Out About New Products/Services 2.17 How Recipients Respond To Email Promotions (2000/2002) 2.18 Reasons Internet Users Forward Email To Others (2001) 2.19 Average Opt-In Email Pass-Along Rate (2002) 2.20 Viral Pass-Along Rate From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies


2.21 Biggest Complaints About Permission Email (2002) 2.22 How Can Permission Email Marketers Improve (2002) 2.23 Growth In Volume Of Spam (2001/2002) 2.24 Share Of Email Filtered As Spam (2001/2002) 2.25 Growth In Spam/UCE Per Internet User (2000-2006) 2.26 Proportion Of Internet Users’ Email That Is Spam/UCE (2001) 2.27 Categories Of Spam Received (2002) 2.28 Spam Filtering Among U.S. Internet Users (2002) 2.29 Internet Users Who Delete Messages Without Reading (2002) 2.30 Internet User Attitudes Towards Spam/UCE (2002) 2.31 Internet User Attitudes Towards Marketing Emails (2002) 2.32 Internet User Attitudes Towards Spam/UCE (2001) 2.33 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers 2.34 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers By List Type 2.35 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers By Mailing Frequency 3.01 Objectives Of Email Marketing Programs (2002) 3.02 Primary Goal Of Email Marketing Programs (2002) 3.03 Objectives Of Email Marketing Programs 3.04 U.S. Email Marketing Expenditures (2000-2006) 3.05 Email Share Of Total Digital Marketing Budget (20002006) 3.06 Changes In Email Marketing Expenditures (2002) 3.07 Changes In Allocation Of Marketing Expenditures (2002) 3.08 Average Email Marketing Cost Per Conversion (2000/2001) 3.09 Estimated Cost Of List Appending (2002) 3.10 Amount Budgeted Annually For Email Database Hygiene (2001) 3.11 Accuracy Of Email Broker List Counts (2002) 3.12 Biggest Challenges For Email Marketers (2002) 3.13 Barriers To Expanding Email Marketing Programs (2002) 3.14 Performance Metrics Tracked By Email Marketers 3.15 Performance Metrics Tracked By Email Marketers (2002) 3.16 Most Commonly Used Marketing Activities (2002) 3.17 Effectiveness Of Selected Marketing Activities (2002) 4.01 How Do Marketers Gather Opt-In Names 4.02 What Types Of House Lists Are Marketers Developing 4.03 Willingness Of Recipients To Opt-In To Email Lists 4.04 Concern About Privacy Of Personal Information Provided Over The Internet (2001)4.05 Internet User Attitudes About Registration And Privacy Statements (2002)

3


4.06 What Information Will Internet Users Share (2002) 4.07 Benefits For Which Internet Users Would Exchange Personal Information (1999/2001) 4.08 Popularity Of Different Opt-In Practices (2002) 4.09 Popularity Of Personalization Models Among Email Recipients (2002) 4.10 Opt-In Rates From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies 4.11 Internet User Opt-Out Activity (2002) 4.12 Opt-Out Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts 4.13 Opt-Out Rate Trend By List Type 4.14 Opt-Out Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing 4.15 Average Opt-Out Rates (2002) 4.16 Effect Of Personalization On Opt-Out Rates (2002) 5.01 How Many Marketers Have House Email Lists 5.02 Marketers Publishing Email Newsletters And Sales Alerts 5.03 Marketers’ Plans For Their Use Of Email Newsletters 5.04 Marketers’ Plans For Their Use Of Email Sales Alerts 5.05 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists 5.06 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among Consumer Marketers 5.07 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among B-to-B Marketers 5.08 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among Mixed Audience Marketers 5.09 Open Rate Trend For House Lists 5.10 Open Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts 5.11 Open Rate Trend By List Type 5.12 Open Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing 5.13 Average Open Rate For House Lists 5.14 Average Open Rate For House Lists By List Type 5.15 Open Rates For House Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies 5.16 Click-Through Rate Trend For House Lists 5.17 Click-Through Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts 5.18 Click-Through Rate Trend By List Type 5.19 Click-Through Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing 5.20 Average Click-Through Rate For House Lists 5.21 Average Click-Through Rate For House Lists By List Type 5.22 Click-Through Rates For House Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies


5.23 Average Bounce Rates (2002) 5.24 Average Bounce Rates By Industry (2002) 5.25 Email List Hygiene Trends Among Consumer Marketers 5.26 Email List Hygiene Trends Among B-to-B Marketers 5.27 Email List Hygiene Trends Among Mixed Audience Marketers 6.01 How Many Marketers Use Third Party Email Lists 6.02 Trends In The Use Of Third Party Email Lists 6.03 Open Rate Trend For Third Party Lists 6.04 Average Open Rate For Third Party Lists 6.05 Open Rates For Third-Party Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies 6.06 Click-Through Rate Trend For Third Party Lists 6.07 Average Click-Through Rate Comparison For Opt-In Email (2002) 6.08 Click-Through And Conversion Rates For Customer Acquisition vs. Retention (2001) 6.09 Average Click-Through Rate For Third Party Lists 6.10 Average Click-Through Rate For Opt-In Email (20012002) 6.11 Click-Through Rates For Third-Party Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies 6.12 Average Click-Through Rate For Opt-In Email Campaigns (2002) 6.13 Average Click-Through Rate By Industry (2002) 6.14 Average Click-Through Rate By Day Of Week (2002) 6.15 Click-Through Rate For Personalized Messages (2002) 6.16 Most Effective Methods Of Profiling Email Recipients (2002) 6.17 Average Conversion Rate For Email Campaigns (2002) 6.18 How Many Marketers Use Email Newsletter Sponsorships 6.19 Trends In The Use Of Email Newsletter Sponsorships 6.20 Click-Through Rate Trend For Email Newsletter Sponsorships 6.21 Average Click-Through Rate For Email Newsletter Sponsorships 6.22 Email Newsletter Click-Through Rates From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies

4


Executive Summary


5


Email marketing is among the topics that marketers are most interested in today. Approximately $2 billion will be spent in the U.S. this year -- or 25% of all digital marketing expenditures -- on acquisition- and retention-related email campaigns. Within three years, that figure is expected to grow three-fold, to $6 billion and email will account for one of every three dollars budgeted to digital marketing Email Is The Number One Online Activity Email is the most widely used Internet application and the number one online activity. There are now 553 million Internet users worldwide and almost 90% of them send and receive email; in the U.S., that number increases to 95%. Seventy-six percent of Internet users in the U.S. typically devote their first few minutes online to reading and sending email. Almost two-thirds of the Internet users who go online from home check their mail at least twice daily. More than one-half of business users check their email six times or more each work day. Approximately 70% of Internet users already receive permission email from online retailers. And 82% of online buyers have completed at least one purchase in response to an email promotion from a merchant. Marketers’ Plans For Email In mid-July, we invited subscribers from several MarketingSherpa newsletters to share some of their email marketing experiences with us. More than 1,680 individuals responded by completing the online survey for this report. Email Marketing Plans For 2002 The survey results indicate that a few As a percent of survey respondents trouble spots are developing but overall, email marketing appears to be working exceptionally well for the majority of Plan To Decrease Use marketers and most plan to expand their Will Use At About The Same Level use of it in the coming months. Plan To Increase Use Email newsletters, alerts and promotions that are sent to marketers' 5.8% own house lists have demonstrated the Sponsor Email 25.6% best performance over the past 12 Newsletters months, according to survey respondents. 51.2% Almost two-thirds (62.3%) intend to expand the use of their own email 8.1% Broadcast newsletters through the remainder of Promotions To 26.2% 2002 while another 32.1% plan to Third Party 52.5% Lists maintain their newsletter-related spending at current levels. 1.1% Just over 50% of the respondents plan Publish Own to increase their spending on broadcasts Email 32.1% to third-party email lists (52.5%) and for Newsletter 62.3% email newsletter sponsorships (51.2%) between now and the end of the year. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Only 1% of the marketers we surveyed plan to decrease the use of their own Source: MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group, 7/2002 email newsletters. In contrast, 8% plan to cut back on their use of third party email lists and 6% intend to do the same with email newsletter sponsorships.


6


Email Performance Metrics 12-Month Trend In Opt-In Email Open Rates As the volume of email that competes As a percent of survey respondents for the attention of Internet users increases, successful marketers are Mailings To Third Party Lists trying harder to track what works and Mailings To House List(s) what doesn't. They're also becoming more savvy in applying that knowledge 36.3% Decreased to optimize their campaigns, testing Significantly variables such as subject lines, delivery 9.3% days, delivery times, and link placement. 55.0% Little To No Among mailers using house lists, Change 68.4% more than two-thirds (68.4%) report that their open rates have changed little 8.8% or not at all during the past year. Almost Increased one-in-four (22.4%) marketers have Significantly 22.4% actually increased their open rates since mid-2001. Less than one-in-ten 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% (9.3%) respondents has experienced a Source: MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group, 7/2002 decline in open rates for their house lists. Click-through rates for house lists have for the most part matched the trends in 12-Month Trend In Opt-In Email Click Rates open rates. A higher percentage of As a percent of survey respondents marketers, however, did report increases in their click rates than did so for open Email Newsletter Sponsorships rates (26.3% vs. 22.4%). Mailings To Third Party Lists More than one-third of the survey Mailings To House List(s) respondents report that a significant decline occurred during the past 12 21.2% months in both open rates and clickDecreased 37.5% through rates for their broadcasts to Significantly 9.7% third-party lists. Marketers are almost four times more likely to experience a decline in response from third party lists 62.0% Little To No than for their house list (36.3% vs. 9.3% 52.9% Change open rate and 9.7% vs. 37.5% click 63.9% rate). Some deterioration in click-through 16.8% rates for email newsletter sponsorships Increased were also reported by respondents. 9.6% Significantly This deterioration in performance has 26.3% generally had a greater impact on consumer marketers than B-to-B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% marketers. Source: MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group, 7/2002

Challenges Facing Email Marketers Looking ahead to the next 6-12 months, factors that are likely to have the biggest impact on marketers’ email metrics are increased filtering and continued growth in the volume of email -- including spam -- that fills the in-boxes of Internet users.


7


Email Filtering -- ISPs and corporate network administrators are beginning to aggressively implement server-side filtering technology to stop spam before it ever makes it to the user’s inbox. The end-result of this can be problematic for legitimate permission marketers and publishers whose emails can easily be tagged as spam, intercepted and never reach the subscriber’s in-box. A growing number of Internet users have also begun to use the filtering capability that’s included in most email clients or that can be purchased as an add-on service or software program. Approximately 21% of Internet users are already using this type of filtering. In order to ensure that their email is not being filtered, Marketers are advised to keep close tabs on data for email which is actually delivered rather than simply tracking bounce rates. Filtered mail is intercepted, not bounced back to the sender, so tracking bounce rates will overlook these “soft bounces.” Marketers that utilize an outside vendor for their email campaign management should request reports that break out undelivered messages according Opt-In Email Activity Among Internet Users to the reasons why they were not delivered. As a percent of survey respondents Increasing Email Volume -- The Opt-Out/Unsubscribe Rates average Internet user receives 15 email Willingness Of People To Join Email List(s) messages per day at home and almost 30 at work. Spam now accounts for approximately 34% of all email and the 14.0% Decreased number continues to grow. Significantly 6.6% The reaction of many Internet users is an increasingly aggressive use of the 78.7% delete key. More than 50% of users Little To No already regularly delete messages without Change 62.3% reading them. As the volume of spam increases, this practice will undoubtedly 7.3% Increased become more common. Significantly So far, most of the marketers in our 31.1% survey have seen little to no impact on metrics for their house lists from “email 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% overload” among Internet users. Only Source: MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group, 7/2002 7.3% have seen a significant increase in opt-out rates and more than four times as many respondents (31.1%) reported that people were actually more willing to opt-in to their lists today than they were 12 months ago.

About The Survey In mid-July, we invited subscribers from several MarketingSherpa newsletters to share some of their email marketing experiences with us. More than 1,680 individuals responded by completing the 25 question online survey for this report. The respondents were comprised of consumer marketers (21%), B-to-B marketers (55%) and marketers targeting a mixed audience of both businesses and consumers (24%).


8


Section I. Who Uses the Internet and Email


9


Email is the one online activity that has been embraced almost universally among Internet users, especially in the U.S. Yankee Group reports that more than nine-in-ten (93%) users at home check their email at least once per week and that 85% of users at work do the same. The next most popular activities are online game playing and online shopping, with barely more than one-half of users at home engaged in one or both. Email is also the first priority for many as soon as they log-on to the Internet. More than three-in-four (76%) Internet users typically devote their first few minutes online to reading and sending email, according to Yankee. Among broadband Internet users, the Pew Research Center reports that 28% spend more time on email than any other single online activity. Only “looking up information” was mentioned by more individuals (32%) as the activity that they spend the most time on, while the next closest activity, “downloading files,” was mentioned by 8% of survey respondents.

1.01 Most Popular Online Activities At Home And At Work (2001) Percent of Internet users who engage in each activity at least weekly

Internet Users At Home

Internet Users At Work 85%

Send/Receive Email

93% 39%

Work-Related Activities

24% 32%

Online Shopping

57% 29% 34%

Online Travel

23%

Instant Messaging

53% 23%

Online Banking

37% 18%

Play Online Games

55% 15%

Bid In Online Auctions Pay Bills Online

Online Chat

30% 10% 24% 10% 37% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Yankee Group, 10/2001


10


1.02 Internet Users Who Send/Receive Email (2002) As a percent of Internet users in each country

95%

USA Australia

90%

U.K.

90%

Netherlands

90%

Denmark

89%

Switzerland

89% 88%

Sweden

84%

Hong Kong

83%

Germany

82%

Spain France

80%

Italy

79% 75%

Brazil 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Nielsen-NetRatings, Q1-2002

Although the rate of email use drops among individuals outside the U.S., 80% or more of the Internet users in most industrial countries regularly send and receive email, according to Nielsen-NetRatings. In countries where Internet access has been common for some time -- such as Australia and the U.K. -- 90% or more of the individuals who are online are also email users. The exact number of U.S. Internet users who also use email varies depending upon the analyst or pollster. A general consensus is approximately 95% of Internet users, with some variation based on demographics and other user characteristics. For example, email use declines among Internet users below the age of 18 and above the age of 55, according to most surveys. Among broadband users, the number of email users increases to 99%, according to the Pew Research Center, compared to its own estimate that 95% of Internet users overall send and receive email.


11


More than one-half of the U.S. population already has Internet access today, according to Jupiter Media Metrix and the number is expected to exceed twothirds of the population in less than three years. Pew estimates that 49% of Internet users go online exclusively from home while 8% have access only at work and 39% have access from both locations. The remaining 4% access the Internet from locations such as school, libraries and cyber cafes. Among U.S. Internet users, more than two-thirds (68%) are active users, according to Nielsen-NetRatings. The number of active users jumps significantly among individuals who go online at work, where 90% of those workers with Internet access have actually accessed the Internet at least once during the last 30 days.

1.03 U.S. Internet Population (1997-2006) Millions of users and as a percent of general population

Internet Users

Percent Of U.S. Population 100%

500 400 300

55%

50%

60%

64%

68%

38% 31% 22% 100

83

124

104

173

158

141

80% 60%

44% 200

71%

173

201

211 40% 20%

60

0%

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, 8/2001

1.04 U.S. Internet Users Online In The Last 30 Days (2002) Millions of users age 2+

Used Internet In Last 30 Days

Have Internet Access

177.2

Home/Work Combined

120.3 48.8

Users At Work 44.0 166.4 Users At Home 105.0 0

50

100

150

200

250

Source: Nielsen-NetRatings, 6/2002


12


At home, The Pew Research Center reports that individuals with broadband access are generally the most active Internet users. Eighty-two percent of broadband users are online daily, according to the organization. In contrast, only 58% of Internet users with dial-up access go online daily and less than one-in-five (19%) go online more than once per day. Almost one-in-five (17%) households in North America with Internet access had a broadband connection at the end of 2001, according to Forrester Research. Estimates from Nielsen-NetRatings and from Pew for the U.S. only, were closer to 20% of households -- or approximately 22-24 million individuals -in early-2002, which represented a 67% increase from January 2001 and a fourfold increase since 2000. At work, Nielsen-NetRatings estimated that 25.5 million office workers -- or about 63% of the workplace Internet population -- had broadband Internet access during the same period.

1.05 Broadband Households In North America (2001/2003) Millions of households in the U.S. and Canada

2001

2003

32.1 Broadband Households 12.1

87.1 Households Online 72.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Source: Forrester Research, 2002

1.06 U.S. Mobile Wireless Data Subscribers (2002/2005) Millions of users

2002

2005

33.0 Business Users 12.0

19.0 Consumers 4.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Source: InStat/MDR, 6/2002


13


One of the fastest-growing components of today’s Internet population is individuals who go online using mobile wireless devices. The majority of these individuals (75%) at present are business users, however, InStat/MDR predicts the number of consumer mobile wireless data subscribers in the U.S. will expand almost five-fold by 2005 (see 1.06). The primary drivers will be WAP- and SMSenabled mobile handsets, although IE device shipments are expected to grow at a 15% CAGR, from 430 million in 2002 to 760 million worldwide in 2006. Most of the interest in mobile wireless data services is expected to remain in Europe and Asia, while interest levels in the U.S. remain comparatively low.

1.07 Global Internet Population By Region (2002) Millions of users age 2+

U.S.A.

166.4

Europe/Middle East

133.2

Asia/Pacific

77.5

14

Latin America

161.9

Rest Of World 0

50

100

150

200

250


1.08 Breakdown Of Internet Population By Region (2002) As a percent of all Internet users age 2+

Europe/Middle East 24%

U.S.A. 30%

Asia/Pacific 14% Latin America 3%

Rest Of World 29%


The global Internet population was estimated to be approximately 553 million at the end of Q2-2002, according to Nielsen-NetRatings. The largest share of users remained in the U.S., however, approximately two-thirds of all Internet users were located outside North America. The next-largest regional population


14


of Internet users was located in Europe, which combined with the Middle East accounted for 24% of the individuals worldwide who were online. A July 2002 analysis of website traffic patterns by WebSideStory found that approximately 43% of active Internet users worldwide during that month were located in the U.S. The next largest population of Internet users in July were located in China (6.6% of all Internet users), followed by Japan (5.2%), the U.K. and Canada (3.9% each), and Germany (3.6%).

1.09 U.S. Internet Users By Gender (2002) As a percent of Internet users

Female

Male

49% Users At Home 51%

60% Users At Work 40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Nielsen-NetRatings, 1/2002

Although women have comprised a slim majority of Internet users both at home and overall since early-2001, they account for only 40% of the online population at work, according to Nielsen-NetRatings. Among those women who are online at work, a disproportionate share (27%) are clerical or administrative workers while only 14% are in executive or managerial positions and 20% are in professional positions. In contrast, the company estimates that one-half of male Internet users at work occupy professional or executive/managerial positions and only 4% are clerical or administrative workers.

1.10 U.S. Internet Users By Household Income (2002) As a percent of U.S. population and each group of Internet users

Have Internet Access

Used Internet In Last 30 Days

General Population

5.9%

20%

7.7%

9.0%

22.9%

28.6%

33.2%

20.7%

23.9%

25.3%

39.8%

40%

32.5%

60%

50.5%

80%

0% < $50,000

$50 - 75,000

$75 - 150,000

> $150,000

Source: MRI Cyber Stats, Spring 2002


15


1.11 Penetration Of Internet Access By Household Income (2002) As a percent of all U.S. households in each income group

100% 79% 80%

83%

70%

60% 47% 40%

35%

20% 0% < $15,000

$15 - 30,000 $30 - 50,000 $50 - 70,000

> $70,000

Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, 2002

1.12 U.S. Internet Users By Age Group (2001) As a percent of Internet users

Number of Internet Users

Penetration Rate Within Age Group 100%

80 81%

80%

75%

80%

60 46%

40

40%

62.4 mn 20 21.5 mn

30.9 mn

60%

26.2 mn

20% 0%

0 18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 54

55+ Source: GartnerG2, 6/2001

IDC predicts that the overall Internet penetration rate will continue to increase during the next few years. As Internet penetration moves towards three-quarters of the entire U.S. population in 2005, the largest increase will occur among users between 35 and 54 years old, which are predicted to expand by 24.2 million, followed by individuals 55+ years old, who will account for 22.1 million new users. IDC also predicts that: • The percentage of children under 12 years old who are online will increase from 42% in 2000 to 78% by the end of 2005 • The penetration rate among teens ages 12 to 17 will increase from 81% to 96%, the highest among all age groups • The age group between 18 and 34 will become the second most saturated with 91% of them online in 2005


16

MarketingSherpa's Email Marketing Metrics Guide • Among adults age 55 and older, the percentage who are online will more than double between 2000 and 2005 from 26% to 56%

1.13 Ethnic Background Of U.S. Internet Users (2001) As a percent of U.S. population and of Internet users

Internet Users

General Population

69.1%

80%

70.5%

100%

60%

0% CaucasianAmerican

AfricanAmerican

HispanicAmerican

AsianAmerican

2.5%

N/A

3.6%

6.0%

12.5%

13.9%

20%

12.3%

9.6%

40%

Other

Source: Intermarket Group (7/2001), U.S. Census Bureau (2000)

1.14 Education Of U.S. Internet Users (2002) As a percent of Internet users

Internet Users At Home

Internet Users At Work

80%

60%

50.3% 34.1%

40% 28.0% 20%

37.9% 31.0%

18.7%

0% High School Graduate Or Less

Attended College

College Graduate Or More

Source: MRI Cyber Stats, Spring 2002


17


Section II. How Do Internet Users Use Email


18


Almost two-thirds (64%) of Internet users surveyed by Quris check their email at least twice daily while only 14% check less than daily. According to Quris, 71% check their email primarily from home and another 18% primarily from work. Ten percent of respondents check from home and work equally and the balance (2%) check their email from libraries, cyber cafes, friend’s houses or elsewhere. Among business users, more than one-half (53%) check their email six or more times daily and 34% check constantly, according to Gartner Group. The company also estimates that these individuals spend approximately 49 minutes per day on average to manage their email.

2.01 How Frequently Internet Users Check Their Email (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

"Many Times" Per Day

32%

2 - 3 Times Per Day

32%

Once Per Day

22%

2 - 6 Times Per Week

11%

Once Per Week

3% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: Quris, 5/2002

2.02 How Frequently Internet Users Check Their Email (2001) As a percent of survey respondents

30% 25% 20%

17% 13%

15%

11%

12%

12%

13%

8%

10% 5%

12%

2%

0% <1 Hour

1 to 2 Hours

3 to 4 Hours

5 to 6 Hours

7 to 8 Hours

9 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 Hours Hours Hours

> 20 Hours

Source: Gallup Organization, 6/2001


19


2.03 Sources Of Email Among Recipients At Home And At Work (2002) As a percent of all email received in each location

Individuals Using Email At Home/Work Equally Individuals Using Email Primarily At Home

22% Family And Friends

26% 25%

Job-Related Messages

6% 9%

Business Permission Email

7% 16%

Personal Permission Email

24% 28%

Spam

37% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Spam now accounts for the largest single source of email among most Internet users. Based on user survey data from several sources, combined with email filtering data from Brightmail, it appears that approximately one-third of all email today is spam. The next largest sources of email among individuals that use the Internet primarily at home are messages from family and friends (26% of all emails) and personal permission email, according to survey data from Quris. Staying in touch with friends and family is one of the principal applications for email among Internet users. Eighty-four percent of Internet users surveyed by The Pew Research Center use email to communicate with family members and 80% use it to contact friends; about one-half of the survey respondents email one or more family members at least once a week and 12% do so daily. One interesting finding by the Pew survey which may be somewhat indicative of the future for email is that among broadband users who spend the most time online, email is actually used less than it is among broadband users overall. On the flip-side, these “heavy users” were more than three times more likely to use Instant Messaging during a typical day -- 48% use IM during the average day compared to only 14% of other broadband users. Nielsen-NetRatings reports that Internet users ages 17 and under are also frequent IM users and, to some extent, they appear to be employing it as an alternative to email.


20


2.04 Daily Email Volume Among Internet Users At Home And At Work (2001) As a percent of survey respondents

Users At Home

Users At Work

50%

42%

60%

6%

2%

2%

2%

1%

8%

12% 6%

10%

9%

10%

13%

10%

19%

20%

28%

30%

27%

40%

0% 5 Or Less

6 To 10 11 To 15 16 To 20 21 To 30 31 To 40 41 To 50

More Than 50


Last year, the average Internet user received 11 emails at home per day and 24 emails at work, according to a survey by the Gallup Organization. The median number of daily emails received at home and at work was 8 and 12 respectively. Seventy percent of respondents in the Quris survey said that the number of emails they receive has increased during the last 12 months. Among those respondents, 74% reported an increase in the amount of spam they received, 44% indicated that email from family and friends contributed to the increase, 28% were receiving more permission-based email and 20% were receiving more workrelated email.

2.05 Daily Volume Of Email Advertisements (2001) As a percent of survey respondents

10+ Messages 47%

1 - 3 Messages 18%

4 - 6 Messages 6%

7 - 10 Messages 29% Source: Opt-In New s, 2001

Opt-In News estimated last year that more than three-in-four (76%) Internet users receive 7 or more commercial emails per day. Recent estimates by Jupiter Media Metrix indicate that the average Internet user receives 6 commercial emails per day. Two-thirds of all email delivered to the in-boxes of individuals surveyed by Quris was commercial -- both permission-based and spam --


21


according to the company. Quris also estimates that 96% of all Internet users receive at least some permission-based email and that the average user receives such messages from 12 different organizations. By 2006, Jupiter predicts that the total volume of commercial email will expand six-fold, from approximately 90 billion messages in 2000 to more than 500 billion. The number of commercial emails received by each Internet user will double, according to the company. Spam will account for more than one-in-three messages in 2006 while permission-based retention messages will comprise almost 30%, acquisition-oriented messages almost 10% and sponsored opt-in emails another one-in-four of all messages.

2.06 Growth In Commercial Email Volume Per Internet User (20002006) Total number of emails received per user per year

Spam

Customer Retention

Sponsorship

Customer Acquisition

1600

1200

800

400

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006


2.07 Consumer Exposure To Online Marketing Messages (20012006) Number of impressions per user per day

1500 1200 900 608

669

733

797

863

930

600 300 0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006


Although the volume of commercial email delivered to in-boxes is growing, it remains only a small part of the clutter that marketers must cut through in order


22


to communicate with existing and prospective customers. The typical Internet user is already exposed to an average of 669 online marketing messages daily, according to Jupiter. By 2006, the company predicts that number will increase by another 53%, to 930 individual impressions per day. As the volume of email received by Internet users continues to grow, delivery preferences for opt-in messages have begun to shift, although not as much as one might have expected. The number of users interested in daily delivery has declined by 25% and only 8% of users prefer delivery 2-3 times per week, which is down from 18% in 2000. The biggest increases have occurred among users interested in delivery either weekly or monthly, although the changes are not substantial. Weekly and monthly delivery are also the most frequently selected options among Internet users.

2.08 Delivery Frequency Preferences Of Opt-In Email Users (2000/2002) As a percent of survey respondents

NFO Interactive (2000)

Forrester Research (June 2002)

9% 12%

Daily

8%

2-3 Per Week

18% 35%

1 Per Week

31% 11% 10%

2-3 Per Month

21% 18%

1 Per Month 7% 6%

< 1 Per Month

Never

8% N/A 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: As Noted


23


2.09 Number Of Email Addresses Per Online Shopper (2001) As a percent of online shoppers

50% 40% 33% 30% 22%

22%

20% 10% 10%

5%

8%

0% One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six Or More

Source: Valentine Radford, 2001

The majority of Internet users have two or more email addresses, according to surveys conducted by Valentine Radford. Each of these “extra” email addresses is generally created for a specific application, such as enabling users to separate work-related information from personal messages. Individuals are also increasingly creating “disposable” addresses for use in situations where they’re concerned about their privacy or about spam. Each year, almost one-third (32%) of email address are changed by Internet users, according to a survey by NFO WorldGroup. Among European Internet users, Forrester Research estimated that 46% had only one email address in 2001 while 28% had two, 11% had three, 5% had four and 11% had five or more.

2.10 Applications For Which Online Shoppers Create Email Addresses (2001) As a percent of online shoppers

100% 80% 65%

61%

60%

60%

57%

40% 22% 20%

Collecting Product/Shopping Information

Correspondence With Family

Work-Related

Private Correspondence

Correspondence With Friends

0%

Source: Valentine Radford, 2001


24


2.11 Email Format Preferences Among Internet Users (2001/2002) As a percent of survey respondents

DoubleClick Survey (2001)

Opt-In News Survey (Q1-2002)

35%

Prefer HTML

37% 62%

Prefer Text

22%

Prefer Rich Media

No Preference

Don't Know

3% N/A N/A 36% N/A 5% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Source: As Noted, 2001/2002

2.12 Internet User Attitudes Towards Rich Email Formats (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

HTML

Rich Media

Multimedia Attachments

80%

60%

52% 39%

40%

34% 26%

26%

31%

28% 22% 16%

20%

0% Feel Positively About It

Neutral

Feel Negatively About It Source: Quris, 5/2002

Surveys conducted by both DoubleClick and Opt-In News found that more than one-third of Internet users prefer HTML-format for opt-in email. The two companies, however, diverge significantly in their estimates of user preferences for text-based email, although much of the difference is likely attributable to a “No Preference” option included in the DoubleClick survey -- which was selected by 36% of respondents -- but not in the Opt-In News survey. Travelocity reports that only 35% of its opt-in subscribers request text-format messages while the balance specify HTML. The online travel company is among the largest email marketers, with 2-3 million broadcast email messages per day and approximately 34 million opt-in subscribers.


25


A May 2002 study by Quris reports that regardless of delivery preferences, almost 80% of Internet users are nevertheless either neutral or have positive feelings toward HTML messages.

2.13 Email Applications Used By Internet Users (2001) As a percent of Internet users

Outlook Express

41%

AOL

28%

Hotmail

27% 21%

Yahoo! Mail Outlook

20%

Netscape

7% 3%

Eudora Juno

2%

Lotus Notes

2%

Excite

1%

AT&T

1%

iWon

1%

Earthlink

1%

Mail.com

1% 8%

Other 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: DoubleClick, 2001

Given the ubiquity of Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office, it should come as no surprise that the majority of Internet users use either the Outlook or Outlook Express software that’s bundled with each product to manage their email. Outlook Express is the most popular email client by a significant margin, according to DoubleClick, with 41% of Internet users using the software at least occasionally. AOL, Outlook and Netscape are the next most popular email clients. Text-only clients such as Eudora and Lotus Notes trail far behind with only 2-3% of Internet users using each. Hotmail and Yahoo! are the clear leaders among web-based email providers, with more than one-in-five Internet users receiving messages through one or both services. Other service providers such as iWon and Mail.com trail far behind at 2% or less each.


26


Announcements from online retailers and travel companies are received by more Internet users than any other type of opt-in email, according to an analysis by DoubleClick. Emails delivering humor-, entertainment-, and household/hobbyrelated content are also popular among many users. DoubleClick reports that a significant demand exists for local information as well, such as news and specials from local retailers or restaurants, although more individuals have expressed an interest than actually receive them at present. NFO WorldGroup has reported similar findings. Almost three-in-four (71%) Internet users already receive permission email from online retailers announcing special offers and 27% receive similar emails from local retailers, according to the company. NFO also found that approximately one-half receive messages with household/hobby content (57%), humor (55%), travel content or announcements (55%) or entertainment-related content (49%).

2.14 Types Of Permission Email Received By Internet Users (2001) As a percent of Internet users

Currently Receive

Interested In Receiving

Specials/Offers From Online Retailers Specials/Offers From Local Firms Household Tips, Recipies, Crafts Humor Travel

Entertainment

Weather

Local News Tech/Business News Finance/Stock Information Sports

Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



27


2.15 Popularity Of Different Types Of Permission Email (2002) Ranked from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) with 3 being neutral

Transaction Confirmations

4.2

Account Status Emails

3.8

Recommendations From Friends

3.5

Company Newsletters

3.3

Customizable Information Updates

3.3 3.2

Time-Based Reminders Rewards Programs

3.1

Email Discussion Groups

3.1

Product Updates Of Interest

3.1

Media Newsletters

3.0

Entertainment

3.0

Email Education Series

3.0

Compiled Targeted Ad Offers

2.7

Personal Email From Offline Firms

2.7 2.4

Unscheduled Permission Emails

2.2

Contests For Address

0

1

2

3

4

5


The majority of Internet users surveyed recently by Quris have a neutral to positive opinion about most types of opt-in or permission email. The company asked respondents to rank 16 different types of permission email on a scale of 1 to 5 -- with 3 or higher generally positive -- and only four were viewed negatively. Business-related emails, such as transaction confirmations (e.g., receipts or shipping notices) and account status messages (e.g., statements or balance notices) were the only types where a majority of respondents selected either 4 (positive) or 5 (very positive). Among the most unpopular opt-in messages were general company announcements or promotional offers that were sent to respondents unexpectedly and messages which offered to enter the recipient in a contest in return for his or her email address for promotional offers from third-party “partner” companies. Respondents in the Quris survey also contradicted the findings of DoubleClick (see 2.14) and expressed a slightly unfavorable opinion (2.7 rating) about personalized emails from offline firms, such as banks, retail stores and local businesses.


28


DoubleClick estimates that more than one-half (58%) of online buyers learn about new products/services from permission-based email, based on an analysis conducted by the company in late 2001. As the volume of email that clogs Internet users’ in-boxes has grown, however, Forrester Research reports many individuals are becoming less receptive to such offers. The company estimated that by early 2002, the number of Internet users who thought email was a good way to learn about new products and promotions had declined from 50% in 2000 to only 38% and that consumers were only half as likely to initiate a purchase from an email offer compared to 2000.

2.16 How Do Internet Users Find Out About New Products/Services (2001) As a percent of U.S. Internet purchasers over a 3-month period

Visit Website

76%

Permission Email

58%

A Friend

34%

Banner Ad

30%

Regular Mail

29% 12%

Unsolicited Email Search Engines

3%

Magazines

3%

Television

2% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: DoubleClick, 10/2001

2.17 How Recipients Respond To Email Promotions (2000/2002) As a percent of survey respondents

2001 Survey Click-Through And Purchase Immediately

2000 Survey

20% 37%

Click-Through For Information And Purchase Later

42% 45%

Have Never Purchased As A Result Of An Email

38% 18% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Source: NFO, 10/2001


29


The 2001 NFO Consumer Email Study (see 2.17) reports that 82% of online buyers have completed at least one purchase in response to an email promotion they received either directly from a merchant or indirectly through a friend or family member. Among the respondents, 37% clicked-through immediately and 45% purchased at a later date (38% ultimately completed the transaction online and the other 7% purchased offline). The most common reasons why Internet users forward an email on to others are it is either relevant to the recipient’s interests or it is considered amusing, according to IMT Strategies. DoubleClick reports that the overall pass-along rate for permission-based email from marketers was 0.37% between Q1-2001 and

2.18 Reasons Internet Users Forward Email To Others (2001) As a percent of survey respondents

Relevant

41%

Funny

35%

Work-Related

7%

Informative

6%

Cool

4%

New Technology

4%

Prize/Coupon/Reward

1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: IMT Strategies, 9/2001

2.19 Average Opt-In Email Pass-Along Rate (2002) As a percent of messages sent

0.70%

Brand

0.60%

Retail Catalog

0.40%

Financial Services

0.40% 0.30%

Entertainment Hospitality

0.20%

B-to-B

0.20%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

Source: DoubleClick, Q1-2002


30


Q1-2002 and 0.33% for publishers. The highest pass-along rate occurs in the retail sector (0.6%), according to DoubleClick, followed by catalogers and financial services at 0.4% each. The lowest pass-along rates were among companies in the hospitality and B-to-B sectors, with an average 0.2% each.

2.20 Viral Pass-Along Rate From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies

Marketer IBM

Sector Technology

Drexel Heritage

Retail

RioLabs

Technology

Bombay Sapphire

Consumer Products

Singapore Airlines

Travel Services

Campaign Personalized text email with link to rich media holiday eCard Text email with rich media eBrochure attached; Brochure provided “forward button” for pass-along Rich media email with “play” button to activate; Provided “forward button” for pass-along AsExpressedByYou microsite enables visitors to design their own unique martini glass online and email pictures of it to friends; 25% of users did so Banner ad-driven sweepstakes enabled entrants to send eCard to friends and receive additional entries for each card picked-up; Entrants could check stats online; Average entrant sent 9 eCards, 70% of 360,000 total entrants were viral


Year

Click Rate

PassAlong Rate

2000

25%

5%

2001

24%

2.3%

2001

3.9%

0.24%

2001

n/a

25%

2002 n/a n/a Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.

31


Internet users in the Quris survey indicated that almost two-thirds (60%) of the permission email they received was poorly done. The most common complaints that related to the email messages themselves include: they are sent too frequently (66%); nothing of value is sent (59%); and the messages are poorly targeted (53%) or cover products that the recipient rarely purchases (46%). The most frequently mentioned complaints overall were suspicions that some marketers were sharing the respondent’s email address without his or her consent (74%) and that respondents had been unsuccessful in attempts to unsubscribe to some opt-in lists (69%).

2.21 Biggest Complaints About Permission Email (2002) Percent of respondents who agree with complaint

Suspect Company Is Sharing My Email Address

74% 69%

Tried Unsubscribing In Vain Messages Sent Too Frequently

66% 59%

Nothing Of Value Being Sent Too Much Email In General

53%

Messages Not Targeted To Interests

53%

Product I Seldom Buy

46%

Not Good Price

43%

Emails Do Not Affect Purchase Decisions

37%

Messages Too "Hard Sell"

36%

No Longer Interested In Topic

27%

Inferior Products Offered

25%

Emails Use "Rich Media"

15%

Emails Use HTML

7% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



32


Considering the most frequently mentioned complaints about permission email among Internet users, many of their suggested improvements are not surprising. The most common suggestions for marketers are to send messages less frequently, offer better deals in their emails and improve the relevancy and targeting of messages, according to Quris.

2.22 How Can Permission Email Marketers Improve (2002) As a percent of respondents who agree with each suggestion

Less Frequent Messages

42%

Better Prices And Offers

35%

More Relevant, Targeted Messages

24%

More Control Over Email Options

18%

Time Savers & Convenience

18%

Exclusive Email Offers

17%

More Self-Personalized Content

9%

More Entertaining Messages

6%

More Timely Messages

6% 2%

More Reminders More Frequent Messages

1% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



33


2.23 Growth In Volume Of Spam (2001/2002) Number of messages received during each month

Jun-02

4,825,144

May-02

4,686,983

Apr-02

4,339,799

Mar-02

3,773,738

Feb-02

3,187,430

Jan-02

2,777,017

Dec-01

1,969,041

Nov-01

1,956,529

Oct-01

1,692,333 1,457,337

Sep-01 Aug-01

1,504,043

Jul-01

1,018,737

Jun-01

879,253

688,545

Jan-01

675,200 1,000,000

623,368

0

Feb-01

6,000,000

Mar-01

5,000,000

683,579

4,000,000

Apr-01

3,000,000

930,546

2,000,000

May-01

Source: Brightmail, 7/2002

During the 12-month period through June 2002, Brightmail screened a total of 12.1 billion email messages for its customers -- ISPs and large companies -- and tagged 2.1 billion of those messages as spam. The monthly volume of spam received by the company’s benchmark Probe Network increased by 74% from January 2002 to June and by 449% during the 12-month period between June 2001 and June 2002. The total number of “spam attacks” reported for the Probe Network have increased from 675,200 in January 2001 to 4.83 million in June 2002. Spam accounted for more than one-third (34%) of all messages screened by the company in June 2002, up from only 8% the previous September (see 2.24). At the level of the individual Internet user, a June 2001 survey by the Gallup Organization (see 2.26) found the largest share of respondents reported that 10% or less of the email they received was spam, approximately 40% indicated that the level was one-third or more and almost one-in-five indicated that a majority of the messages they receive are spam. More recently, the Quris survey found that spam accounted for 35% of the email received by its respondents overall. Among users who check their email primarily at home, the level was 37%, which dropped to 28% among users who check their email at home and at work equally.


34


2.24 Share Of Email Filtered As Spam (2001/2002) As a percent of all email received

June 2002

34%

March 2002

25%

September 2001

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Source: Brightmail, 7/2002

A July 2002 survey by MessageLabs found that more than one-half of the IT and business managers from the U.S. who responded reported that spam accounts for 30% or more of the email they receive each day. The amount of spam received by survey respondents from the U.K. was significantly less, at an average of 15% of daily emails. The total annual volume of spam messages received by Internet users is expected to jump from an average of 595 in 2001 to 738 this year, according to Jupiter Media Metrix. By 2004, the company predicts the volume of spam will more than double, to an average 1,671 messages or almost five per day.

2.25 Growth In Spam/UCE Per Internet User (2000-2006) Number of messages per user per year

2,000 1,671 1,600

1,393 1,145

1,200 927 738

800

595 451

400 0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, 2002


35


2.26 Proportion Of Internet Users’ Email That Is Spam/UCE (2001) As a percent of survey respondents; indicates share of weekly email received at home and at work that is spam 91% To 100% 1% 71% To 90% 7%

10% Or Less 30%

51% To 70% 10% 11% To 20% 16%

41% To 50% 10%

21% To 30% 15%

31% To 40% 11%


2.27 Categories Of Spam Received (2002) As a percent of all spam received by Brightmail Probe Network Other 15%

Financial 20%

Adult 8%

Scams 6%

Leisure 3%

Health 4%

Internet 13% Spiritual 4%

Products 27% Source: Brightmail, 6/2002

2.28 Spam Filtering Among U.S. Internet Users (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Use Spam Filter Within Email Client 21% Do Not Use Filter 52%

Uncertain 27%

Source: Opt-In New s, 2002


36


As the volume of spam grows, Internet users are becoming more aggressive in dealing with the problem. Opt-In News reports that one-in-five use the filtering capability provided by their email software (see 2.28). A February 2002 survey by Ipsos-Reid found that 58% of adult Internet users regularly delete Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) or spam without reading it and that 29% say they have contacted the sender to request removal of their email address. Recent surveys by Quris and Forrester Research returned similar findings. Quris reports that 52% of its survey respondents generally delete spam without reading it, but 12% are curious to read it. Quris also found that only 3% of its respondents indicated that they delete opt-in or permission-based email without reading it.

2.29 Internet Users Who Delete Messages Without Reading (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

52%

Quris

55%

Forrester Research

58%

Ipsos-Reid

77%

IMT Strategies 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: As Noted, 2002

2.30 Internet User Attitudes Towards Spam/UCE (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Messages From Permission Email Company Messages From Unrecognized Company 80%

60%

52%

49% 40% 29% 21% 20%

13%

12%

15% 6%

3%

1% 0% Eager To Read

Curious To Read

Indifferent

Open But Annoyed

Delete Without Reading



37


Although the majority (67%) of Internet users indicate that unsolicited email promotions offer nothing of interest, according to Forrester Research, 25% do read them and 16% occasionally forward them to friends or family. Both Quris and Ipsos-Reid report that 12% of users actually read their unsolicited email while the Gallup survey indicates 13% of its respondents do not mind receiving unsolicited email or find them interesting and useful on occasion.

2.31 Internet User Attitudes Towards Marketing Emails (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

I get too many email promotions

70%

They offer nothing of interest

67%

I delete them without reading

55%

I read them in case something catches my eye

25%

They are a great way to find out about new products and services

26%

I sometimes forward them

16%

I often buy products advertised

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Forrester Research, 6/2002

2.32 Internet User Attitudes Towards Spam/UCE (2001) As a percent of survey respondents

Hate Spam

42% 45%

Find It Annoying But Don't Hate It

Have No Strong Feelings Either Way

9%

Sometimes Find It Interesting

Really Like To Receive Spam

4%

0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



38


Given the increased in the volume of spam received by most Internet users, it’s not surprising that 26% of consumer marketers and 35% of B-to-B marketers report that the number of spam-related complaints they’re receiving have increased significantly during the last 12 months. More than 60% of survey respondents, however, report little or no change in their complaint levels. The type of opt-in list used by marketers seems to make little difference in spam complaint levels, according to survey respondents; two-thirds or more of the respondents using each type of list report little or no change over the last year. One surprise, however, was that marketers who use double opt-in lists were more likely to report a significant increase in spam-related complaints than either single opt-in or opt-out list owners.

2.33 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

Mixed Audience Marketers

100% 80% 66.2%

61.0% 61.6%

60% 34.5%

40% 25.8%

28.7%

20%

8.0% 4.6% 9.7%

0% Increased Significantly

Little To No Change

Decreased Significantly

Source: MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group, 7/2002

2.34 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers By List Type As a percent of survey respondents

Increased Significantly

Little To No Change


100% 79.8%

77.9%

80%

65.5% 60% 40% 23.0% 20%

9.1%

13.0%

11.5%

9.0%

11.2%

0% Single Opt-In List

Double Opt-In List

Opt-Out List



39


2.35 Spam Complaint Trends Among Email Marketers By Mailing Frequency As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change

Decreased Significantly 17.8% 62.2%

Daily 20.0% 12.4%

75.9%

Weekly 11.7% 17.0%

76.1%

Bi-weekly 6.8% 16.6%

74.2%

Monthly 9.3% 11.5%

82.7%

Quarterly 5.8% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Eighty percent or more of the survey respondents for each mailing frequency indicated that spam-related complaints have either changed little or have actually decreased during the past 12 months. There does, however, appear to be a correlation between the frequency of mailing to an opt-in list and the level of complaints. With only one exception -- for bi-weekly delivery -- the number of respondents that have seen a significant increase in complaints expands steadily as the frequency of delivery increases. Less than 6% of marketers who mail quarterly report increased complaint levels compared to 9% among marketers who mail monthly, 12% for weekly mailings and 20% for daily mailings.


40


Section III. Email Marketing Activity


41


The most common objective for email marketing programs is to maintain communication with customers and improve customer retention. Other frequently mentioned objectives include generating sales leads and disseminating information/educating sales prospects. Among those marketers that do use email for direct sales, many rank direct sales as the primary goal of their email marketing effort.

3.01 Objectives Of Email Marketing Programs (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group

DoubleClick

e-Dialog

80% Generate Leads

65% 59% 49% 55% 58%

Disseminate Information

87%

Customer Relations/Retention

Customer Awareness/Branding

55% 60% N/A 55% 41% 67%

Direct Sales

53% 42% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: As noted, 2002

3.02 Primary Goal Of Email Marketing Programs (2002) As a percent of survey respondents Acquire New Customers 39%

Shorten Purchase Cycle 3% Disseminate Information 7% Sell Products Or Services 18%


Deepen Relationships With Existing Customers 33%

Source: e-Dialog, 4/2002

42


Customer relations is the most frequently mentioned objective for email marketing programs among our own survey respondents. Among the B-to-B marketers only, generating sales leads and educating sales prospects are the most frequently mentioned objectives. Consumer marketers are almost twice as likely as B-to-B marketers to identify direct sales as an objective of their email marketing; customer relations is the second most frequently mentioned objective among those survey respondents that target consumers.

3.03 Objectives Of Email Marketing Programs As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers Mixed Audience Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

48.5% Direct Sales

32.3% 58.7% 60.6% 65.2%

Generate Sales Leads

39.3% 63.8% 63.2%

Educate Sales Prospects

38.2% 33.7% 24.2% 29.3%

Drive Offline Sales

47.0% 39.8% 38.5%

Branding

64.0% 59.3% 56.1%

Customer Relations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



43


3.04 U.S. Email Marketing Expenditures (2000-2006) Millions of dollars

Email To Rental Lists

Email To Customers

$5,742 $275

2003

$244

2002

$224

$3,122 $207

$1,770 $223

$220

$396

$247

$1,127

$4,000

$2,000

$4,280

$6,000

$6,498

$8,000

$0 2000

2001

2004

2005

2006


3.05 Email Share Of Total Digital Marketing Budget (2000-2006) As a percent of annual expenditures

40% 32.0%

33.7%

32.7%

2005

2006

29.6% 30%

24.7% 18.0%

20%

10%

8.0%

0% 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004


Companies collectively spent approximately $1.35 billion on email marketing last year, according to Forrester Research, accounting for 18% of digital marketing expenditures and 0.3% of total marketing expenditures. The DMA estimates that email marketing expenditures were $927 million in 2001 and that they generated 15% of all online sales, up from 3% in 2000. The overwhelming majority (84%) of email-related expenditures are allocated to activities which focus on house lists and customer retention/communication efforts. By 2005, Forrester predicts that spending for email marketing will grow fivefold, accounting for one-third of total digital marketing expenditures compared to 18% last year. Among companies that use email marketing, the largest share of most marketing budgets in 2002 is allocated towards direct mail, according to e-Dialog. The companies surveyed by e-Dialog expect email marketing to jump into second place this year in terms of its share of total marketing expenditures and push


44


spending on events, sponsorships and similar promotion-oriented vehicles as a group into third place, followed by in descending order, offline advertising, nonemail online advertising and telemarketing. One-half of email marketers surveyed earlier this year by DoubleClick plan to increase their overall marketing budgets during the next 12 months while almost one-in-four (23%) plan to decrease their budgets. At the same time, 95% of respondents in both the DoubleClick and the e-Dialog surveys plan to either increase their spending on email marketing or at least maintain it at the same level as last year.

3.06 Changes In Email Marketing Expenditures (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Total Marketing Budget For 2002 (DoubleClick) Email Marketing Budget Over Next 12 Months (DoubleClick) Email Marketing Budget For 2002 (e-Dialog) 80% 61% 60%

55% 50% 39%

40%

34% 27%

23%

20% 5%

5%

0% Increase Over 2001

About The Same

Decrease From 2001 Source: As noted, 2002

Marketers also plan to increase their spending on direct response television advertising by an average of 18% in 2002, according to DoubleClick, but decrease expenditures for general TV and for radio advertising by 1% and 2.3% respectively. Other categories that DoubleClick predicts will receive increased funding are channel marketing (14.9% increase) and out-of-home marketing (4.9% increase). The biggest decline in spending is expected in catalog marketing (13.4% decrease), according to DoubleClick. e-Dialog survey respondents expect to reduce their spending on broadcast advertising -- radio and TV combined -- in 2002 by 9.6% from last year’s level. The share of overall marketing budgets allocated to email marketing is expected to increase by a double-digit amount for 2002, according to both the DoubleClick and e-Dialog surveys (see 3.07). The marketers surveyed by DoubleClick plan to increase their allocation to email marketing by an average of 17% and e-Dialog reports that its survey respondents plan an even larger increase of 33.5%. The two companies disagree about marketers’ intentions for non-email online advertising, with DoubleClick survey respondents planning a 9% average


45


increase in the allocation level and e-Dialog respondents planning an average 4% decrease. (It’s worth noting that the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) recently reported that aggregate online advertising expenditures declined in Q1-2002 by 6.5% from the Q4-2001 level and by 18% from the Q1-2001 level.) Both companies predict that budget allocations for direct mail and telemarketing will decline in 2002 from their respective levels last year.

3.07 Changes In Allocation Of Marketing Expenditures (2002) Percent change in amount budgeted for 2002 over 2001 for each category

DoubleClick

e-Dialog

33.5% Email Marketing 17.0% -3.9% Online Advertising 9.0% -4.4% Telemarketing -6.8% -9.4% Direct Mail -6.9% -20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: As Noted, 2002

The overall average cost per conversion for email marketing increased by 10% last year among acquisition-oriented campaigns and by 4% among customer retention campaigns, according to Jupiter Media Metrix. Although overall average click-through rates and conversion rates both declined by 2040%, the company reports that much of the deterioration in performance metrics was offset by declining prices for media and delivery. Although the costs for campaign delivery are unlikely to increase anytime in the foreseeable future, an improving economy will likely reduce the availability of the CPA and CPC deals that have placed downward pressure on the cost of media noted by Jupiter between 2000 and 2001.

3.08 Average Email Marketing Cost Per Conversion (2000/2001)

Media CPM Delivery CPM Click-Through Rate Conversion Rate Cost Per Conversion

---------Acquisition--------2000 2001 $200.00 $125.00 --7.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.0% $114.00 $125.00

----------Retention---------2000 2001 --$30.00 $15.00 10.0% 8.0% 5.0% 3.0% $6.00 $6.25



46


3.09 Estimated Cost Of List Appending (2002) Cost per record appended

High

$5.75

Mean

$1.25

$0.55

Low

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

Source: Opt-In New s, 2002

The average cost for appending services is $1.25 per record, which includes the integration of offline customer data with email addresses, according to Opt-In News. The cost of such services, however, varies significantly, from as little as $0.55 per record to $5.75 per record on the high end. Opt-In News predicts that the cost of appending will decline significantly during the next three years as its popularity increases among marketers and the practice becomes more widespread.

3.10 Amount Budgeted Annually For Email Database Hygiene (2001) As a percent of email marketers

15%

Do Not Know > $250,000

1% 2%

$200 - 250,000

4%

$150 - 200,000

2%

$100 - 150,000

4%

$50 - 100,000

5%

$25 - 50,000

12%

$10 - 25,000

55%

< $10,000 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Source: AIM/Return Path

The majority (55%) of email marketers budget less than $10,000 per year to maintain their house email lists, according to Return Path. Only 1% of companies


47


spend more than $250,000. The cost of email database hygiene encompasses a variety of tasks, including the removal of phony email addresses, updating customer addresses that have changed and fixing addresses that have been mistakenly entered incorrectly by the customer. The costs are something that should not be overlooked, especially given that 32% of email addresses change each year for various reasons, according to NFO WorldGroup.

3.11 Accuracy Of Email Broker List Counts (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Always/Usually Accurate

3%

Accurate Only Some Of The Time

71%

Never Accurate

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Opt-In New s, 5/2002

One of the initially perplexing results of our survey was the surprising number of respondents that reported improbably high open rates and click-through rates for campaigns using third-party email lists and email newsletter sponsorships. Inasmuch as all answers were anonymous, there was no incentive for participants to inflate their performance metrics. The results can be explained in part by the practice of some vendors and publishers to underreport the number of emails delivered, which artificially inflates performance metrics, such as open rates, click-through rates and pass-along rates. A recent survey by Opt-In News found that 97% of respondents thought that email list brokers provided accurate counts to them only some of the time or never. Some vendors and publishers also report click-through rates as a percentage of emails that were opened instead of total emails delivered. In a campaign that achieves a 20% open rate, for example, a click rate calculated off of emails opened would be five-times higher than the rate based on emails delivered.


48


More than one-half (56%) of marketers surveyed by e-Dialog report that email list-related challenges are their number one concern. The most frequently mentioned challenge is finding good prospects lists, which is increasingly difficult as list fatigue and the growth in spam and other email competing for people’s attention drives down open rates and click-through rates for third-party lists. Fiftyone percent of respondents indicated that obtaining email addresses for their existing customers was among their top three challenges. Systems- and logistics-related challenges were the least frequently cited options by survey respondents. Measuring results was identified as the number one challenge by 15% of respondents and among the top three challenges by 40%. Technical challenges were cited as the number one challenge and among the top three challenges by 11% and 30% of respondents respectively. Handling campaign response was cited as the number one challenge and among the top three challenges by 3% and 27% of respondents respectively.

3.12 Biggest Challenges For Email Marketers (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

#1 Challenge Ranked Among Top 3 Challenges Finding Good Prospect Lists

38%

Getting Email Addresses For Current Customers

18%

Finding/Creating Good Content

16%

Measuring Results

15%

Technical Challenges

11%

Handling Campaign Response 3%

0%

29%

33%

41%

40%

30%

27%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



49


3.13 Barriers To Expanding Email Marketing Programs (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Privacy Issues

38%

Our Customers Are Not Online

30% 26%

Ineffective Lack Of Resources Or In-house Capabilities

17%

Inconsistent Reporting

17%

Not Enough Housefile Names

12%

Too Expensive

4% 2%

Too Complicated

11%

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

DoubleClick, 2002

Privacy issues are considered to be the biggest obstacle that companies must contend with in expanding their email marketing efforts, according to DoubleClick. The second and third most frequently mentioned barriers are that respondents’ customers are not yet online and that email marketing is viewed by the respondents as ineffective. Internal limitations, such as a “lack of resources or in-house capabilities” and an insufficient number of house list names with email addresses were mentioned by 17% and 12% of respondents respectively. The lack of email addresses for existing customers was also identified as the number one challenge by 18% of marketers that participated in the e-Dialog survey (see 3.12).


50


3.14 Performance Metrics Tracked By Email Marketers As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

Mixed Audience Marketers 57.8% 50.8% 63.2%

House List Open Rate

34.9% 28.8% 41.6%

Rented List Open Rate

60.1% 57.8%

House List ClickThrough Rate

74.2% 37.5% 32.0% 47.5%

Rented List ClickThrough Rate

38.3% 32.3% 40.5%

Newsletter Sponsorship ClickThrough Rate

73.9% 76.5% 86.5%

Bounce Rate/Undeliverables

73.8% 76.3%

Opt-Out/Unsubscribe Rate

87.2% 70.9% 70.0% 81.3%

Spam Complaints

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Bounce rates, opt-out rates and spam complaints are the most widely used performance metrics among email marketers, with more than 70% of survey respondents tracking each. Both our own survey and a similar Q1-2002 survey by e-Dialog found that approximately one-half of marketers measure house list open rates and 60% measure click-through rates. Companies that target consumers are generally more likely than B-to-B marketers to track various aspects of their email campaigns. This was the case among respondents for every one of the individual metrics that we inquired about in the survey. Approximately 70% or more of email marketers surveyed by e-Dialog either already track, or are interested in tracking, most of the nine different performance metrics mentioned by the company. Total click-through rate, unsubscribe rate and open rate are the most widely used metrics among those included in the survey. The most frequently mentioned metrics that respondents would like to


51


track, but don’t at present, are pass-along rate (mentioned by 46% of respondents), brand recognition (45%) and conversion rates for offline channels (37%).

3.15 Performance Metrics Tracked By Email Marketers (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Currently Measure

Want To Measure

Total Click-Through Rate

64%

Unsubscribe Rate

61%

Open Rate

47%

Conversion Rate (Website)

46%

Unique ClickThrough Rate

43%

Direct Revenue

38%

32%

Email Pass-Along Rate

23%

46%

Conversion Rate (Other Channels)

18%

37%

9%

45%

Brand Recognition

0%

19% 16% 25% 28% 29%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


TRACKING EMAIL METRICS ISN’T AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS You've selected your lists and got your campaign out, now you want to compare the results for each list. Unfortunately, performance comparisons can be very difficult because various vendors track responses in completely different ways. Melissa Edison Barnes, co-founder of Blue Ink Solutions says, "It's imperative to understand what raw data means from each list, how it compares against others, and how each list manages tracking and offers that raw data back." For example: • • •

Unique versus aggregate click tracking. Barnes’ colleague and co-founder, Clint Kaiser explains, "If the recipient clicks on a link 10 times, does that register as ten clicks or does that recognize that individual as the same person who's clicked the other nine times?" What does the tracking system consider an "open event"? If a recipient's Outlook preview box opens the email automatically without their proactive click to open, does than count as an open? Can you track response rates of AOL, Yahoo, and Hotmail separately? Each of these may have very different response rates from "regular" email addresses because of their bulk mail folder systems, their ability to receive rich media creative (or not), and the predilection of people to set up "spare" mailboxes in each that they may rarely check for mail.

Read the full case study at: http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2040


52


3.16 Most Commonly Used Marketing Activities (2002) Percent of survey respondents engaged in each activity

Print Advertising

86% 58%

Direct Mail Online Advertising

54%

Public Relations

54%

TV (General)

53%

Promotions/Coupons

51%

Trade Shows

51%

Radio Advertising

47%

Retail Displays

47%

Email Marketing

44%

Catalogs

34%

Channel Marketing

33%

Telemarketing

31%

TV (Direct Response)

21%

Out Of Home

14% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Print advertising is the most widely used marketing tactic, according to DoubleClick, followed by direct mail, non-email online advertising and public relations. e-Dialog found that among the companies it surveyed, respondents are allocating the largest share of their overall marketing budgets -- an average of 25% -- to direct mail in 2002. Non-email online advertising is used by 54% of the marketers surveyed by DoubleClick and email marketing is used by 44% of respondents.


53


3.17 Effectiveness Of Selected Marketing Activities (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

Most Effective

Second Most Effective

Third Most Effective Email Marketing

32%

30%

Direct Mail

32%

29%

Telemarketing

17%

Offline Broadcast Advertising

17%

Internet Advertising Other (Sponsorships, Events, Etc.)

8%

0%

16%

16%

17%

23%

18%

23%

20%

19%

17%

19%

17%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Email marketing and direct mail are each ranked as the number one most effective marketing tactic by 32% of the marketers surveyed by e-Dialog. Both are also ranked as the top marketing tactics overall, with 82% of respondents indicating that email marketing is either the number one, second or third most effective tactic available to them and 80% placed direct mail in one of those three categories. Non-email Internet advertising is ranked the lowest among the various choices presented in the survey, with only 42% of respondents identifying it among their top three most effective marketing tactics.


54


Section IV. Opt-In Email List Building


55


The most commonly used methods for building opt-in email lists are focused around list owners’ own websites. The majority of our survey respondents -- and almost two-thirds (62%) of consumer marketers -- include an opt-in feature on their homepage; check boxes on order forms and website registration forms are also widely used by respondents. The use of sweepstakes and contests is a popular tactic among consumer marketers, with more than one-third (36%) of survey respondents using them. Consumer marketers are also three times more likely than B-to-B marketers to employ co-registration deals. On the flip-side, B-to-B marketers are more likely to use telemarketing in their list building efforts. Despite the recent interest in list appending, few marketers appear to be using the tactic. Although it is slightly more popular among the consumer marketers we surveyed, only 7% of them currently use appending and the number drops to 4% among B-to-B marketers.

4.01 How Do Marketers Gather Opt-In Names As a percent of survey respondents; more than one response allowed

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

Mixed Audience Marketers 55.3% 55.9% 61.6%

Homepage Sign-up Form

49.1% 44.1% 45.9%

Homepage Link To Sign-up Form

46.4%

Checkbox On Reg./Order Forms

35.3% 47.2% 13.5% 6.5% 17.3%

Co-registration Deals

19.9% 9.1%

Sweepstakes/Contests

36.2% 11.1% 8.7% 13.8%

Premium/Free Gift With Sign-up

11.6% 19.8% 7.9%

Telemarketing

4.9% 4.0% 7.2%

List Append

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



56


4.02 What Types Of House Lists Are Marketers Developing As a percent of survey respondents; more than one response allowed

Single Opt-In

Double Opt-In

Opt-Out

80% 62.5% 60%

50.1%

49.7%

45.0%

40%

31.4% 31.2% 25.3% 23.4%

19.9%

20%

0% B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers



Single opt-in lists are generally the most popular among survey respondents who have one or more house email lists. Almost two-thirds (63%) of consumer marketers use single opt-in along with 50% of B-to-B and mixed-audience marketers (companies targeting both businesses and consumers). Marketers that target a mixed audience are the most likely to use double opt-in for their house list while B-to-B marketers are more likely to employ an opt-out approach with their customer email addresses. Two-thirds of consumer marketers and the majority of other survey respondents indicate that they have seen little to no change over the past 12 months in the willingness of Internet users to join their own opt-in email lists. Surprisingly, 26% of consumer marketers and one-third (35%) of B-to-B marketers report that the interest among customers/visitors has actually increased significantly since mid-2001, in spite of the growth in messages that fill their inboxes each day.

4.03 Willingness Of Recipients To Opt-In To Email Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80% 66.2%

61.0% 61.6%

60% 34.5%

40% 25.8%

28.7%

20%

8.0% 4.6% 9.7%


Little To No Change




57


LESS IS BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO WEB FORMS

Privacy continues to be a significant issue among many Internet users. Seventy-eight percent of respondents to a June 2001 survey by Gallup were either somewhat concerned or very concerned about the privacy of both the information they provided to websites as well as their activities while they were online. Nine months later, Jupiter Media Metrix reports that 70% of the users it surveyed are concerned about privacy, although 82% are nevertheless still willing to share various personal details if necessary when registering with websites. The Personalization Consortium also found that 82% of Internet users are willing to provide details such as their gender, age and ethnicity to a website if it will remember their preferences and profile information. Marketers should not, however, take away from any of these surveys the notion that Internet users are enthusiastic about sharing their personal details, because that is definitely not the case.

NetLine develops Internet-based communication and marketing programs for B-to-B marketers. Raechelle Drivon, NetLine's Marketing V.P., recently ran an email marketing campaign offering a free white paper download in order to collect new leads for the company’s sales reps. 4.04 Concern About Privacy Of Personal Information Provided Drivon tested two The Internet (2001) different registration forms in the campaign. A Percent of survey respondents short version asked for Somewhat Very contact information plus Concerned one non-required Concerned 50% additional question. The 28% longer version asked for contact information plus three optional questions. Both forms also included a pre-checked box that, if No Answer left untouched, allowed 1% Drivon to send additional Not At All information, including Concerned NetLine’s monthly email Not Too 3% newsletter. Concerned Which form worked 18% Source: Gallup, June 2001 best? The short form won hands down, garnering a 74.6% conversion rate (prospects who visited the 4.05 Internet User Attitudes About Registration And Privacy Statements (2002) landing page and Percent of survey respondents completed the form), compared to only 50% for the longer form. And 60% of all registration Concerned about 70% form users (both versions) privacy left the pre-checked box, to have their email address Willing to share added to NetLine's list, personal details with 82% checked. Drivon attributes websites this lower-than-normal Read privacy percent to the fact “we statements before 40% were sending to a registering marketing audience, and they are more savvy to Find privacy checking or unchecking a 30% statements easy to box.” understand Read the full case study at: http://www.marketingsherpa. com/sample.cfm?contentID= 2105

0%

20%


40%

60%

80%

Over

100%


58


The Jupiter survey found that Internet users are most likely to share their email address with a website and least likely to provide their phone number and income. Gallup reports that 65% of the Internet users it surveyed are concerned about sharing their home phone number, 53% mentioned their age and 51% mentioned their address. Less than one-in-four (22%) were concerned about sharing their email address, according to Gallup.

4.06 What Information Will Internet Users Share (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

61%

Email Address

49%

Full Name

36%

Username/Password

Phone Number

19%

Household Income

18% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


4.07 Benefits For Which Internet Users Would Exchange Personal Information (1999/2001) As a percent of survey respondents asked: “What benefits from a website or channel would motivate you to exchange information about yourself?”

2001

1999 65%

Guarantee that the information will not be misused

73% 39%

Eligibility to win a prize in a sweepstakes

48% 26%

Affinity points, such as frequent flyer miles

31% 31%

Regular email updates for products/services of interest

29% 31%

Access to more or better online content/information

28% 23%

Nothing

13% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, 5/2001 and 5/1999


59


As the privacy concerns of Internet users have grown, so has the number of individuals who look for a guarantee that the information they share with websites will not be misused, according to Jupiter, from 65% in 1999 to 73% in 2001 (see 4.07). Jupiter also reports that user expectations of receiving some kind of incentive -- such as affinity points or entry in a sweepstakes -- in return for their personal details have also increased since 1999.

4.08 Popularity Of Different Opt-In Practices (2002) Ranked from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) with 3 being neutral

4.7

Unsubscribe Option In All Emails Explicit No-Share-Address Policy

4.6

48-hour Email Support Answers

4.5

Editable Personal Preferences Page

4.4

Provide Phone Number In Emails

4.4

Explicit Privacy Policy

4.3

Double Opt-in Confirmation

4.2

Unchecked Default Opt-in Box

4.1

Third Party Privacy Seal In Email

3.9

Multiple Opt-in Email Products

3.3 2.9

Co-registration With Ad Partners Assumed Permission By Default

1.5

Assumed Right To Share Address

1.4 0

1

2

3

4

5


The value placed on privacy and control by Internet users is apparent in the data from the Quris survey. Opt-in practices that support those objectives were rated very high by survey respondents: the ability to unsubscribe from within each email message was ranked by 91% either positive or very positive; 84% said the same about an editable personal preferences web page and 77% liked double opt-in confirmation. In contrast, opt-in practices that assume permission without explicitly asking were highly unpopular. Seventy-two percent of respondents rated this approach either negative or very negative. The practice of sharing email addresses without explicit permission was viewed negatively by 78% of survey respondents.


60


The Quris findings should be considered carefully when evaluating tactics such as list appending for adding email addresses to existing customer and prospect house files. Opt-In News recently reported that among Internet users who think they have received appended email, only 5% indicated they believe permission had been given while 82% disagreed and 12% were uncertain. As mentioned previously, despite their concerns about privacy, Internet users are generally positive about various personalization and targeting strategies. A recent survey by Quris asked users to rank nine different personalization models on a scale of 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) -- with 3 being neutral -- and all nine received a net positive rating. One intriguing aspect of the Quris survey results was that the 30% of respondents who were most concerned about privacy issues also assigned higher than average ratings to every one of the personalization models by two- to four-tenths of a point, depending on the specific model (e.g., “Demographic Targeting” was rated 4.0 by respondents concerned about privacy compared to 3.7 among all respondents).

4.09 Popularity Of Personalization Models Among Email Recipients (2002) Ranked from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) with 3 being neutral

Customizable Content

4.2

Personalized Name

3.9

Demographic Targeting

3.7

Reminders

3.6

Human Sales Reps

3.5

Geographic Targeting

3.5

Account Summary

3.4

Targeted By Site Purchase History

3.3

Targeted By Content History

3.3 0

1

2

3

4

5



61


4.10 Opt-In Rates From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer

Sector

Year

eBags

Retail

2001

Business Services

2001

Sweepstakes Free email newsletter on marketing

Business Services

2001

Emailed news on additional educational offers

Auto Trader.com

Media

2001

Online game with prizes

Singapore Airlines

Travel Services

2002

Sweepstakes

Aptech Computer Training

Business Services

2002

Scholarship fund

Minute Maid

Consumer Products

2002

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Government

2002

Sweepstakes Receive future notices for other free ride events

Investment House.com

Financial Media

2002

Free email newsletter

NetLine

Business Services

2002

White paper download

GetMarketing

eMagine

Incentive

Opt-In Rate 75% of entrants 7% of website visitors

Comments Appeared as a pop-up cobranded offer on 3rd party sites

95% of respondents from integrated campaign who visited website or responded w/ business reply card opted-in to list 95% Each game started by asking if the visitor would like to receive the Auto Trader.com monthly newsletter and occasional 61% of third party special offers players Banner ad-driven sweepstakes enabled entrants to send eCard to friends and receive add’l. 80% of entries for each card entrants picked-up Instant messaging-style banner ads achieved 5% click rate, with 75% of respondents registering 75% of for a free personal clicks counseling session Integrated mktg campaign for new product launch; 7.5% of website visitors opted-in; 89% of opt-ins answered add’l. non50% of required questions on the entrants entry form Rich media email campaign sent to house 29% of opt-in list announcing a opens civic transportation event Up to 25-30% of website 5% of visitors referred by search website engine keyword adv’g optvisitors in to receive newsletter Email campaign to vendor opt-in list; 60% of visitors that registered to down60% of load white paper opted-in reg. to receive company email users newsletter Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.

Although more than 90% of the marketers we surveyed reported no perceived decrease over the past 12 months in the willingness of Internet users to opt-in to their email lists, 70% of the Internet users surveyed recently by Forrester Research said that they receive too many email promotions (see 4.11). Forrester also reports that more than one-half of its respondents wonder how some of the


62


companies that send them email obtained their email address (58%) and they wish that it was easier to unregister from opt-in lists (52%).

4.11 Internet User Opt-Out Activity (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

I get too many email promotions

70%

I wonder how companies got my name and email address

58%

68%

I have left a list I previously registered for

I have unregistered from a list I didn't previously sign-up for

58%

I wish it was easier to unregister

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Forrester Research, 6/2002

4.12 Opt-Out Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change


8.9% Email Alerts

83.3% 7.8%

8.2% Email Newsletters

87.8% 4.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


The vast majority of our survey respondents reported little change in the optout rate for their email newsletters or alerts and approximately 8% reported a significant decrease in opt-out rates. The number of marketers that send email alerts -- which are typically delivered frequently and at no set schedule -- and who reported a significant increase in opt-out rates was almost twice the level among companies sending email newsletters.


63


The marketers in our survey that employ double opt-out for their house lists were the most likely to report a significant change in unsubscribe rates over the last 12 months. Approximately one-in-five respondents with double opt-out lists indicated that their unsubscribe rates have declined significantly -- compared to 10% for single opt-in and, surprisingly, 15% for opt-out lists -- while 9% reported a significant increase in opt-out rates.

4.13 Opt-Out Rate Trend By List Type As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change


100% 83.1%

78.5%

80%

71.5%

60% 40% 19.7% 20% 6.6%

10.4%

8.8%

14.5% 7.0%


Double Opt-In List

Opt-Out List


The seemingly counter-intuitive survey result above for opt-out lists provides an opportunity to discuss briefly the usefulness of the opt-out or unsubscribe metric. Although useful as a relative indicator of trends, opt-out rates can be problematic for evaluating interest (or lack of interest) in a marketer’s email promotions/content. Many Internet users find it easier to simply delete messages from mailers they’re no longer interested in rather than unsubscribe. This is especially true with old fashioned listserv mailing lists and with lists that require the subscriber to login to a website with a username/password and then “update” his or her preferences. People have also become increasingly reticent to opt-out from mailings they didn’t request -- or don’t remember requesting -- because of the fear they will end up on one or more additional lists.


64


4.14 Opt-Out Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change

Decreased Significantly 15.2% 78.3%

Daily 6.5% 15.5%

77.0%

Weekly 7.4% 14.2%

80.2%


77.6%

Monthly 7.2% 8.9%

87.0%

Quarterly 4.1% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Vertical Response recently analyzed several hundred thousand email campaigns that it had delivered for its customers and found that an average unsubscribe or opt-out rate between 0.2% and 0.75% is reasonable for lists that are mailed at least once per month. For lists that are mailed less frequently, the unsubscribe rate can be expected to increase to 2-5%, according to the company.

4.15 Average Opt-Out Rates (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

Frequently Mailed Lists

0.20 - 0.75%

Infrequently Mailed Lists

2.0 - 5.0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Source: Vertical Response, 3/2002


65


Lack of relevancy or uninteresting content is the number one reason subscribers opt-out of email lists, according to Ipsos-Reid. Seventy-one percent of Internet users surveyed by the company have unsubscribed from at least one email list because the information delivered was not sufficiently interesting or relevant. Yesmail recently analyzed 90+ million emails that it sent during Q1-2002 and found that the use of personalization in messages can significantly decrease optout rates. As a baseline, email that employed no targeting or personalization generated an average opt-out rate of 0.7%. As the level of personalization -- and by extension, relevancy to the recipient -- increased, the opt-out rate declined steadily; emails that employed up to 8 data elements, such as name, age, gender, interests and purchase history generated opt-out rates that were less than one-third the level for messages that were not targeted.

4.16 Effect Of Personalization On Opt-Out Rates (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

1.00% 0.80%

0.70%

0.60%

0.50%

0.50% 0.40%

0.40% 0.20% 0.20%


7 To 8 Data Elements




No Targeting Or Personalization

0.00%

Source: Yesmail, Inc., 7/2002

66


Section V. Email Marketing To House Lists


67


The overwhelming majority (86%) of marketers we surveyed have developed one or more house lists which include email addresses. Among consumer marketers, the share increases to 91% and it dips slightly to 84% among B-to-B marketers. A Q1-2002 survey by DoubleClick found that 80% of respondents are developing one or more email lists. Seventy-nine percent of these lists are used at least in part for direct sales and 74% are used in customer retention efforts. Most of the marketers surveyed by DoubleClick employ third-party lists for customer acquisition.

5.01 How Many Marketers Have House Email Lists As a percent of survey respondents

100% 80%

91.20% 83.80%

86.90%

B-to-B Marketers


60% 40% 20% 0% B-to-C Marketers


5.02 Marketers Publishing Email Newsletters And Sales Alerts As a percent of survey respondents; more than one response allowed

Publish Email Newsletter

Publish Email Alerts 86.4%


83.2%

81.3% B-to-B Marketers 81.2%

84.8% B-to-C Marketers 84.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


A similarly high percentage of survey respondents also published their own email newsletter (79%) or email alerts (78%). Two-thirds publish both a


68


newsletter and periodic alerts. It appears that marketers who target a mixed audience -- both businesses and consumers -- are the most likely to use their optin list for ongoing communication with customers, inasmuch as 99% of them who have an opt-in list also publish an email newsletter or email alerts compared to 92% of consumer marketers. Email newsletters and periodic email alerts are equally popular among marketers, regardless of the target audience. No more than 2% of survey respondents -- and less than 1% of consumer marketers -- indicated any plans to decrease their use of either during the remainder of 2002. Conversely, approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated that they plan to increase their use of one or both types of email.

5.03 Marketers’ Plans For Their Use Of Email Newsletters As a percent of survey respondents

Plan To Increase Use

Use At About The Same Level

Plan To Decrease Use 100% 80% 66.2%

65.3%

63.7% 60% 35.9%

40%

33.0%

33.1%

20% 1.6%

0.4%

0.6%

0% B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers



5.04 Marketers’ Plans For Their Use Of Email Sales Alerts As a percent of survey respondents



Plan To Decrease Use 100% 80%

67.9%

63.9%

62.7% 60% 40%

37.0%

35.0%

31.2%

20% 0.4%

1.1%

0.9%

0% B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers




69


5.05 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists As a percent of survey respondents

MarketingSherpa + Intermarket Group

AIM/Return Path

10%

Daily

4% 14%

Weekly

15% 18%

Bi-weekly

19% 32%

Monthly

37% 22%

Quarterly

21% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Source: As noted, 2002

5.06 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among Consumer Marketers As a percent of survey respondents

50% 40%

33.0% 30%

24.6% 20.6%

20%

10.0% 10%

5.6%

6.2%

Daily

Several Times Per Week

0% Weekly

Every Two Weeks/Twice A Month

Monthly

Quarterly


The largest number of marketers mail to their house opt-in lists once per month, according to both our own survey and data from Return Path. As the frequency of mailings increases, the number of marketers declines and only 4% of survey respondents send daily emails to any of their house lists. Consumer marketers are the most likely to mail to their house lists often, with almost one-third (32%) of respondents sending email either once per week or more frequently. Only one-in-ten mail to their house lists quarterly.


70


Less than one-in-five (19%) of the B-to-B marketers surveyed send as many messages to their house lists as consumer marketers. Twenty-five percent send email only once per quarter -- which is 2-1/2 times higher than among consumer marketers -- and almost two-thirds (64%) mail to their house lists either monthly or quarterly.

5.07 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among B-to-B Marketers As a percent of survey respondents

50% 39.1%

40% 30%

25.1% 17.0%

20% 11.3% 10% 3.7%

3.7%

Daily


0% Weekly


Monthly

Quarterly


5.08 Frequency Of Mailings To House Lists Among Mixed Audience Marketers As a percent of survey respondents

50% 40%

36.2%

30% 17.3%

20% 10%

4.1%

3.5%

Daily


19.7%

19.2%

0% Weekly


Monthly

Quarterly



71


Most marketers in the survey report that their open rates for mailings to house lists have changed little or not at all during the past 12 months. Among companies targeting business customers, one-in-four actually reported a significant increase in their open rate as did 18% of consumer focused marketers. Consumer marketers are also, however, almost twice as likely as the B-to-B marketers to report a significant decline in open rates (13.5% vs. 7.7%).

5.09 Open Rate Trend For House Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80%

68.1% 67.3% 70.8%

60% 40% 25.1% 20%

18.4%

20.8% 13.5%

7.7% 8.3%


Little To No Change



Open rates among one-in-five of the marketers surveyed have actually increased during the past 12 months Click-through rates for house lists have increased significantly among 26% of marketers in the past 12 months


72


Survey respondents that send email alerts to their house lists indicated somewhat more frequently than respondents with email newsletters that their open rates have changed little during the past 12 months. Email newsletters were, however, more likely to have experienced a significant increase in open rates (19% vs. 15% for email alerts).

5.10 Open Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts As a percent of survey respondents

Increased Significantly Decreased Significantly

Little To No Change

3.3% 81.7%

Email Alerts 15.0%

4.3% 77.1%

Email Newsletters 18.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


5.11 Open Rate Trend By List Type As a percent of survey respondents for each list type


Little To No Change

70.3%

70.4%


100% 80%

69.4%

60% 40% 22.4%

20.8% 20%

21.6%

8.9%

7.2%

Single Opt-In List

Double Opt-In List

9.0%

0% Opt-Out List


There was almost no difference in the open rate trend among survey respondents based on the opt-in method used. For each of the different list types used -- single opt-in, double opt-in and opt-out -- approximately 70% of respondents reported little to no change in their open rates over the past year. A


73


small difference was apparent among marketers that employ double opt-in, with the number who reported increased open rates slightly higher than the mean while the number that reported a decline in open rates was slightly lower than the mean. The impact of mailing frequency on open rates for the last 12 months appears to be limited. Marketers that mail to their house lists bi-weekly or more frequently are more likely to report declines in open rates compared to respondents that mailed monthly or quarterly. Approximately one-in-four survey respondents for most mailing frequencies, however, have seen a significant increase in their open rates during the past year. Respondents that send their house list mailings quarterly are the least likely to report any significant change in open rates -- either increases or decreases -- with 81% reporting they’ve seen little or no change.

5.12 Open Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing As a percent of survey respondents for each delivery frequency


Little To No Change

13.9% 63.9%

Daily 22.2% 8.8%

68.1%

Weekly 23.0% 10.4%

65.3%


68.2%

Monthly 25.2% 8.6%

80.6%

Quarterly 10.8% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



74


HOW LIST FATIGUE IMPACTS OPEN AND CLICK RATES NetLine develops Internet-based communication and marketing programs for B-to-B marketers. The company also publishes a free email newsletter, INSPIRE, that it sends to opt-in subscribers every month. When Raechelle Drivon, NetLine's Marketing V.P., sent out a recent edition of INSPIRE, it was about one week after the company had ended an email marketing campaign which included an option for prospects to sign-up for the free email newsletter. She says, “I tracked [the new names gathered from the campaign] as a separate panel to see how they responded compared to how my regular newsletter group did, and they responded huge.” Drivon continues, “The open rate for my regulars stayed about what it usually is: 35%. The open rate for the new audience who signed up just a week before was 53%! My click-through rate on my regular audience was about average: 6.39%; it usually measures between 6% and 8.5%. The click-through rate on the leads group was 17.5%!” Read the full case study at: http://www.marketingsherpa .com/sample.cfm?contentID =2105

5.13 Average Open Rate For House Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

Mixed Audience Marketers 6.9% 7.0%

< 10%

6.0% 6.3% 5.7%

10 - 19%

7.3% 8.2% 7.3%

20 - 29%

14.0% 7.5% 8.9%

30 - 39%

12.7% 10.1% 7.0%

40 - 49%

16.7% 16.4% 15.8%

50 - 59%

14.7% 44.7% 48.4%

60%+ 28.7% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Open rates vary widely and can be influenced by a variety of factors, including list source, time and day of delivery, subject line and “From Label.” Marketers sending well executed, targeted mailings to house lists should generally expect open rates in the range of 40-60%, according to data from Vertical Response based on an analysis of several hundred thousand campaigns sent by its clients. Among the marketers that we surveyed, respondents that target consumers generally achieved the lowest open rates; more than one-half (57%) reported overall average open rates of less than 50%. Respondents targeting business customers reported the highest open rates, with almost two-thirds (64%) claiming an overall average open rate of 50% or higher.


75


HOW LIST FATIGUE IMPACTS OPEN AND CLICK RATES Part II Rich Ord founded iEntry in January 1999, launching a handful of email newsletters that first year starting with 'WebProNews', which is still his flagship publication. Today, the company runs 55 branded Web sites for its newsletters and sends out 50 million emails a month to opt-in subscribers. Over the last few years, Ord has discovered that subscription life cycle is a critical factor in the open rates for his company’s email newsletters. “If they subscribed within the past three months, they open at 85%-90%. If they're two years old, on average they could be down to a 15% open rate unless you really revamp content and find new reasons to make them open,” explains Ord. Therefore circulation marketing plays a critical role in keeping advertisers happy by supplying fresh names that open well and click often. Read the full case study at: http://www.marketingsherpa .com/sample.cfm?contentID =1866

5.14 Average Open Rate For House Lists By List Type As a percent of survey respondents

Single Opt-In List

Double Opt-In List

Opt-Out List

7.7% 5.7% 6.4%

< 10%

7.0% 4.3% 6.4%

10 - 19%

7.0% 6.4%

20 - 29%

13.6% 8.5% 10.7% 9.7%

30 - 39%

9.2% 9.3% 9.7%

40 - 49%

16.2% 11.4% 16.9%

50 - 59%

44.3% 52.1%

60%+ 37.3% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Survey respondents that employ double opt-in generally experienced higher open rates than marketers using single opt-in and opt-out lists; almost three-infour (73%) reported overall open rates of 40% or higher and more than one-half (52%) reported rates of 60% or higher. Conversely, only 10% reported open rates of less than 20%. Surprisingly, mailers using opt-out house lists were more likely than respondents with single opt-in lists to report open rates of 50% or higher. This result may be explained at least in part by the disproportionately large number of B-to-B marketers who use opt-out lists -- 45% compared to only 23% of consumer marketers -- combined with the higher overall average open rates reported by B-to-B marketers.


76


5.15 Open Rates For House Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer BetterGolf.com Franklin Covey iEntry (1) Century 21 TechTarget

Sector

Year

Media Business Services Technology Media

2000

Real Estate Technology Media

2002 2002

Mfg.

2002

Marsh-McBirney BD's Mongolian Barbeque Time-Life

Principal Goal Maximize click-through rate for their email newsletter advertisers Email newsletter produced to generate sales leads Maximize click-through rate for their email newsletter advertisers Generate sales lead (via email to other Century 21 agents) Maximize click-through rate for their email newsletter advertisers Support company’s independent sales reps.

2001 2001

Open Rate 50-60% 80-85% 85-95% 30% 80% 60%

Restaurant 2002 Drive offline traffic 60-65% Publishing 2002 Generate direct sales 40-50% Business Email newsletter produced to NetLine Services 2002 generate sales leads 35% (1) Opt-in subscribers 3-months old or less have 85-90% open rates; rates decline with age to as low as 15%. Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.

The trends in overall click-through rates experienced by survey respondents during the last 12 months parallels the trends in open rates. More than 60% of respondents report that their click-through rates have changed little and approximately one-in-four have seen a significant increase in click-through rates. Consumer marketers are the most likely to have experienced a decrease, with 15% reporting a decline in click-through rates compared to only 8% of B-to-B marketers. For the previous 12-month period between 2000 and 2001, Jupiter Media Metrix estimates that the average click-through rate for customer retention email campaigns declined by 20% -- from 10% to 8%.

5.16 Click-Through Rate Trend For House Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80% 61.6% 64.6%

65.9%

60% 40% 23.7%

27.8% 25.3% 14.7%

20%

7.6% 8.8%


Little To No Change




77


Few of the marketers surveyed (approximately 7%) report any decline in clickthrough rates from their email newsletters or email alerts over the last 12 months. Among respondents publishing periodic alerts, however, 29% did report a significant increase in their click-through rates compared to 17% for email newsletters.

5.17 Click-Through Rate Trend For Newsletters vs. Sales Alerts As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change


6.8% Email Alerts

64.4% 28.8%

7.0% Email Newsletters

76.1% 16.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


5.18 Click-Through Rate Trend By List Type As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change


100% 80%

67.4%

64.3%

62.3% 60% 40% 26.8%

26.0% 20%

11.8%

26.8% 8.9%

5.8%


Double Opt-In List

Opt-Out List



78


The majority of survey respondents reported little to no change in the overall average click-through rate for their house lists during the past 12 months, regardless of how frequently they mailed to them. Marketers that mail to their house lists quarterly are the most likely to report little change in click-through rates. Conversely, lists that are mailed bi-weekly are the least likely to have experienced little to no change. More than one-third (35%) of respondents that mail bi-weekly reported their click-through rates had increased significantly over the past 12 months; interestingly, they are also the most likely to report a decline in click-through rates (along with marketers that mail weekly) for the same period.

5.19 Click-Through Rate Trend By Frequency Of Mailing As a percent of survey respondents


Little To No Change

7.7% 69.2%

Daily 23.1% 12.4%

60.3%

Weekly 27.3% 11.2% Bi-weekly

53.4% 35.4% 6.9%

Monthly

68.6% 24.5% 8.9%

Quarterly

77.8% 13.3% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



79


5.20 Average Click-Through Rate For House Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers Mixed Audience Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

13.4% 11.2% 11.4%

< 3% 4.7%

10.4% 14.1%

3 - 4%

22.0% 15.4%

5 - 8%

20.8% 9.4% 12.7% 14.1%

9 - 12%

8.7% 7.3% 6.7%

13 - 16%

8.7% 10.0%

17 - 20% 5.4% 3.1% 0.8% 1.3%

21 - 24%

6.3% 5.0% 6.0%

25 - 29%

22.8% 27.3% 20.1%

30%+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


The majority of survey respondents reported that the overall average clickthrough rate for their house lists was 12% or less. The largest proportion (27%) of B-to-B marketers reported average click-through rates of 30% or higher followed by respondents with a 5-8% click-through rate (15% of B-to-B marketers). Among consumer marketers, the largest number (21%) reported a 5-8% average click-through rate and another 20% reported a 30%+ click-through rate.


80


5.21 Average Click-Through Rate For House Lists By List Type As a percent of survey respondents

Single Opt-In List

Double Opt-In List

Opt-Out List

14.90% 7.1%

< 3%

13.3% 11.90% 10.3%

3 - 4% 6.4%

17.8% 11.9%

5 - 8%

21.1% 13.9% 13.5% 12.8%

9 - 12%

13 - 16%

6.9% 10.3% 6.9%

17 - 20%

10.9% 6.3% 8.7% 1.0% 2.4% 0.9%

21 - 24%

3.0% 5.6% 7.3%

25 - 29%

19.8% 32.5%

30%+ 22.5% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


The specific opt-in method employed by marketers in developing their house email lists appears to impact click-through rates, according to survey respondents. Thirty-eight percent of marketers that employ double opt-in reported click-through rates of 25% or more, compared to 30% for single opt-in and 22% for opt-out. Among those respondents that reported click-through rates of 5% or less, more than one-in-four (27%) employed opt-out lists compared to 20% for single opt-in and 17% for double opt-in.


81


5.22 Click-Through Rates For House Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer AlwaysInStyle.com (1) AlwaysInStyle.com (1) Seth Godin LivePerson.com Motorola IBM (2) IBM (3)

Sector Retail Retail Publishing Technology Telecom Technology Technology

Year 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000

Drexel Heritage (4) eBags PaperExchange

2000 2001 2001

SoBe Beverages

Retail Retail Internet Consumer Products

2001

Chutney Technologies

Technology

2001

Chutney Technologies

Technology

2001

CinemaNow

Internet Business Services Financial Technology

2001

eMagine GRX Technologies (6) Overstock.com Element K Century 21 NetLine

2001 2001

Retail Business Services

2001

Real Estate Business Services

2002

2002

2002

Principal Goal Generate direct sales Generate direct sales Generate eBook downloads Generate sales leads Generate direct sales Generate sales leads Generate sales leads Generate website and drive instore traffic Generate direct sales Generate repeat website traffic Email newsletter produced to generate repeat website traffic Generate article downloads and sales leads Generate sales leads by offering free conference call with CEO Flash email newsletters produced to generate direct sales and repeat website traffic

Click Rate 67% 20% 33% 20% 5.4% 12% 25% 24% 8% 15% 25% 25% 20%

43%

Generate sales leads Email newsletter produced to generate sales leads Generate direct sales and repeat website traffic

25%

Generate direct sales/upsell Generate sales lead (via email to other Century 21 agents) Email newsletter produced to generate sales leads

3%

40% 5%

10% 6 - 8.5%

(1) Personalized email promotions were sent to partner Hanover’s Silhouettes catalog customers; (2) 12% click-through on personalized invitation to view Flash video eCard; 85% of recipients who opened card clicked on to website; (3) 25% click-through on personalized invitation to view Flash holiday eCard; 10% or recipients who opened card clicked on to response form; (4) Text email with rich media eBrochure attached; (5) Percent of recipients who click-through to read full-text stories on website. Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.


82


Bounce rates can vary significantly, based on a variety of factors. First-time mailings to a new email list can generate bounce rates as high as 20-30%, according to Vertical Response. The company estimates that lists which are mailed regularly -- twice a month or more -- should experience bounce rates of between 2-4% while lists mailed only monthly can generate bounce rates from 5% up to 13%. Data from both DoubleClick and Experian also indicate that average bounce rates vary from industry to industry. Experian estimates the average bounce rate among catalog companies is 12% (DoubleClick estimates only 7%) while the rate drops to 5% among retailers and 2% among mailers in the financial services and the publishing industries.

5.23 Average Bounce Rates (2002) As a percent of total messages sent

Experion

2 - 12%

Vertical Response (2)

2 - 4%

Vertical Response (1)

5 - 13%

9.4%

DoubleClick

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

Source: As noted, 2002 (1) Lists mailed at least tw ice monthly (2) Lists mailed appx. once a month

5.24 Average Bounce Rates By Industry (2002) As a percent of total messages sent

15.0%

Brand 7.8%

Catalog

8.9%

Entertainment

7.6%

Hospitality

9.9%

Retail

18.4%

B-to-B 7.9%

Financial Services 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%



83


5.25 Email List Hygiene Trends Among Consumer Marketers As a percent of survey respondents


Opt-Out Rate

Spam Complaints

100% 79.9% 76.5%

80% 64.2% 60% 40% 21.1% 20%

14.7%

8.9% 11.8%

11.2% 11.8%


Little To No Change



5.26 Email List Hygiene Trends Among B-to-B Marketers As a percent of survey respondents


Opt-Out Rate

Spam Complaints

100% 80.3% 73.9%

80% 63.1% 60% 40% 19.1%

17.7%

20% 5.6%

9.4%

14.1% 16.7%


Little To No Change



The majority of all survey respondents reported little to no change among the various list hygiene-related metrics during the past 12 months. Approximately one-fifth of respondents, however, reported a significant increase in bounce rates for their house lists and another 17% reported a significant decrease; B-to-B marketers (see 5.26) were more likely than consumer marketers (see 5.25) to have experienced a decline in bounce rates. Companies targeting businesses were also more likely to report a decline in spam-related complaints while companies targeting consumers were more likely to experience an increase in opt-out rates.


84


5.27 Email List Hygiene Trends Among Mixed Audience Marketers As a percent of survey respondents


Opt-Out Rate

Spam Complaints

100% 73.9% 74.0%

80% 60.0% 60% 40% 21.4% 20%

18.6% 16.6%

9.5% 11.2%

14.8%


Little To No Change




85


Section VI. Third Party Email Lists and Newsletter Sponsorships


86


Rented and other third-party email lists are used by a slim majority of consumer marketers, but less than one-half of the B-to-B marketers surveyed. A similar Q-1 2002 survey by DoubleClick found that 57% of respondents use thirdparty opt-in lists and 49% use “other companies’ lists.” Most of the companies surveyed by DoubleClick employ third-party lists for customer acquisition while their house lists are used primarily for direct sales and customer retention efforts. Approximately 90% of our survey respondents plan to continue using thirdparty lists at either the same level or at an increased level through the rest of 2002. Only 11% of consumer marketers and 8% of B-to-B marketers plan to decrease their use of rented and third-party lists.

6.01 How Many Marketers Use Third Party Email Lists As a percent of survey respondents

100% 80% 54.8%

60%

54.5% 47.0%

40% 20% 0% B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers



6.02 Trends In The Use Of Third Party Email Lists As a percent of survey respondents



Plan To Decrease Use 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

61.5%

61.2%

57.4%

31.7%

30.6% 10.9%

28.3% 8.2%

10.2%

0% B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers




87


Although the majority of survey respondents report little to no change in overall open rates for email campaigns using third-party lists, almost as many marketers report that their open rates have declined significantly during the past 12 months. Open rates among B-to-B marketers have been impacted the least, with 29% reporting a significant decline -- and 11% actually reporting a significant increase -- while 42% of respondents that target consumers have experienced a decline in open rates. In contrast, only 9% of marketers report a similar decline in open rates for their house lists and more than one-in-five indicate that their open rates have actually increased since last year.

6.03 Open Rate Trend For Third Party Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80% 60.0% 60%

49.5%

51.6% 42.9%

41.8% 40% 20%

29.4% 8.8% 10.6% 5.5%


Little To No Change



Thirty-six percent of marketers report that open rates for third-party lists have declined compared to 9% for house lists. Thirty-seven percent report that click-through rates for third-party lists have declined compared to 10% for house lists


88


6.04 Average Open Rate For Third Party Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

Mixed Audience Marketers 29.2% 29.7%

< 10%

29.5% 16.9% 16.1%

10 - 19%

19.7% 20.0% 16.9%

20 - 29%

26.2% 16.9% 9.3%

30 - 39%

9.8% 6.2% 16.1%

40 - 49% 8.2% 0.0% 5.1%

50 - 59%

4.9% 10.8% 6.8%

60%+ 1.6% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Marketers sending well-executed, targeted email campaigns to opt-in thirdparty lists should generally expect open rates in the range of 20-30%, according to a recent analysis by Vertical Response that examined the results from several hundred thousand campaigns sent by its clients. Approximately two-thirds of the marketers we surveyed reported that they experienced an overall average open rate of less than 30% when using third-party lists and 29% reported open rates of less than 10%. B-to-B marketers generally achieved the highest open rates, with 37% reporting rates of 30% or higher compared to 24% of consumer marketers.


89


6.05 Open Rates For Third Party Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer

Office.com Farmbid.com

Sector Business Services Business Services Agriculture

2000 2000

RioLabs

Technology

2001

Seattle Lab Dallas Area Rapid Transit MarketingPilot Avenet - Hallmark Div.

Technology

2001

Government Technology Technology Business Services

2002 2002 2002

netgenShopper

NetLine

Open Principal Goal Rate Sign-up new customers to 90-day free trial 40% Increase website traffic and opt-in newsletter subscribers 72% Acquire registered users 15-20% Generate white paper downloads and sales leads 24% Generate white paper downloads 2.7 and sales leads 2.9% Publicize community event and generate new opt-in subscribers 83% Generate sales leads 52% Generate sales leads 9% Generate white paper downloads and sales leads 37% Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.

Year 2000

2002

The trend in overall click-through rates for third-party and rented lists tracks very closely with the trend in open rates. Thirty-seven percent of survey respondents have experienced a significant decline in their click-through rates during the last 12 months -- compared to 36% for open rates -- and 9% reported increases in both their open and click-through rates. Among B-to-B marketers only, approximately 10% more respondents reported a significant decline in their click-through rates than did so for open rates.

6.06 Click-Through Rate Trend For Third Party Lists As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80% 56.6%

60%

48.6%

51.5% 41.9%

20%

41.2% 32.9%

40%

9.5% 10.4% 7.2%


Little To No Change




90


6.07 Average Click-Through Rate Comparison For Opt-In Email (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

Jupiter Media Metrix (Retention)

8.00%

GartnerG2

6 - 8%

DoubleClick

6.95%

Jupiter Media Metrix (Acquisition)

5.00%

Vertical Response

3 - 5% 3.00%

Opt-In News

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

Source: As noted; Jupiter estimates 10/2001, all other estimates from 2002

Estimates of average click-through rates for opt-in email campaigns vary widely between sources, which is due at least in part to the combining of results from mailings to house lists with results for third-party lists. Click-through rates also vary between customer acquisition-oriented emails and retention-focused messages. Jupiter Media Metrix estimates the average click-through rate for customer acquisition-oriented emails at 5%, or approximately 40% lower than the average for customer retention mailings (8%). Between 2000 and 2001, click-through rates for acquisition-oriented campaigns declined by 30%, from an average of 7% to 5%, according to Jupiter.

6.08 Click-Through And Conversion Rates For Customer Acquisition vs. Retention (2001) As a percent of email messages sent

Average Click-Through Rate

Average Conversion Rate

2%

Customer Acquisition

5%

3%

Customer Retention

8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%



91


DoubleClick estimates that the overall average click-through rate between Q12001 and Q1-2002 was 6.95% (8.03% among marketers and 5.23% among publishers). The analysis by Vertical Response of its clients’ email campaigns found that a click-through rate of 3-5% is a reasonable expectation for a well executed effort. Individual links embedded within the message can be expected to achieve clickthrough rates of 0.5% to 1.5%, according to the company. At the low end of the estimates, a Q1-2002 survey of mailers by Opt-In News found that a majority (59%) of respondents achieve an average click-through rate of 3% or less. The majority (56%) of our own survey respondents report that their overall average click-through rate for third-party lists is 4% or less. Three-in-four respondents claimed average click-through rates of 8% or less. The largest proportion of marketers (44% of respondents) reported click-through rates of less than 3% followed by marketers with rates of 5-8% (19% of respondents).

6.09 Average Click-Through Rate For Third Party Lists As a percent of survey respondents

44.3%

< 3%

11.8%

3 - 4%

19.0%

5 - 8%

8.4%

9 - 12%

13 - 16%

3.0%

4.6%

17 - 20%

21 - 24%

0.4%

2.1%

25 - 29%

6.3%

30%+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



92


Since January 2001, click-through rates among marketers have fluctuated from quarter to quarter between 9.7% and 5.4%, according to DoubleClick. The average click-through rate among marketers during the first-quarter of 2002 was 8% -- which was up from 6.8% the previous quarter -- and 5.2% among publishers.

6.10 Average Click-Through Rate For Opt-In Email (2001-2002) As a percent of email messages sent

Marketer

Publisher

5.23%

8.03%

7.46%

6.75%

4.52%

6%

5.40%

7.60%

9%

6.20%

6.92%

12%

9.73%

15%

3% 0% Q1-2001

Q2-2001

Q3-2001

Q4-2001

Q1-2002

Source: DoubleClick, 5/2002

6.11 Click-Through Rates For Third Party Lists From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer Aquent LowerMyBills.com (1) LivePerson.com Charrette.com TotaliNet Sento Corp. NASA RioLabs Sento Corp. Corporate Apparel Unlimited MarketingPilot Element K Avenet - Hallmark Div. NetLine

Sector Business Services Financial Services Technology Technology Business Services Business Services Government Technology Business Services Business Services Technology Business Services Technology Business Services

Year

Principal Goal

Click Rate

2000

Respondents submit resume

3.4%

2000 2000 2000

Acquire new customers Generate sales leads Generate sales leads

4-5% 15% 8%

2000

Generate sales leads

2000 2001 2001

Generate sales leads Generate business partner leads Generate white paper downloads and sales leads

2001

Generate sales leads

2001 2002

Generate sales leads and direct sales Generate sales leads

2002 2002 2002

Generate sales leads Generate sales leads Generate white paper downloads and sales leads

4% 3-5% 9% 2.4% 10-12%

5% 3.6% 10-14% 4% 8%

(1) Company reported click-through rates of up to 8-9% in solo mailings using Yesmail and MyPoints. Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.


93


6.12 Average Click-Through Rate For Opt-In Email (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

50% 40% 31% 30% 20%

25% 19% 15% 9%

10% 0% < 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

> 20%

Don't Track


6.13 Average Click-Through Rate By Industry (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

16.2%

Brand Catalog

9.5%

Entertainment

6.2%

Hospitality

4.4%

Retail

9.1% 4.6%

B-to-B

6.0%

Financial Services 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%


As mentioned previously, DoubleClick estimates that the overall average clickthrough rate between Q1-2001 and Q1-2002 was 6.95%. Brand advertisers achieved the highest average click-through rate (16.2%), followed by catalogers at 9.5% and retailers at (9.1%). The lowest click-through rates were among mailers in the hospitality and B-to-B sectors at 4.4% and 4.6% respectively.


94


DoubleClick also reports that marketers generally achieved the highest clickthrough rates on permission email early in the week (Sunday through Tuesday). It should be noted, however, that the vast majority of marketers interviewed by MarketingSherpa indicate that they achieve the best results from emails sent on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. One exception to this, according to Travelocity, is mailings to AOL, which the travel company has found can be sent on Fridays or as late as Saturday without a dramatic decline in results. Travelocity has also found that time of delivery effects results, so the company generally sends its messages between 8:00 AM and noon (based on each recipient’s local time).

6.14 Average Click-Through Rate By Day Of Week (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

Marketer

Publisher 10.62%

Sunday

7.92% 5.98% 6.94%

Monday

6.02%

Tuesday

7.62% 6.03% 5.60%

Wednesday

5.12% 6.20%

Thursday

7.06% 6.47%

Friday

8.22%

Saturday

6.08% 0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%



95


The Q1-2002 analysis by Yesmail of 90+ million emails it had delivered (see also 4.16) found that click-through rates generally increased along with the level of personalization. Messages that employed no personalization generated an average 4.7% click-through rate while those that leveraged 7 or 8 data elements in targeting and personalization achieved an average three-fold increase in clickthrough at 14.8%. Targeting and personalization can employ a variety of data elements, according to Yesmail, including name, gender, age, interests, purchase history, products owned, product usage, and message delivery and content preferences.

6.15 Click-Through Rate For Personalized Messages (2002) As a percent of email messages sent

25% 20% 14.8%

15% 10%

7.5% 4.7%

7.6%

4.0%

5%





No Targeting Or Personalization

0%

Source: Yesmail, Inc., 7/2002

6.16 Most Effective Methods Of Profiling Email Recipients (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Campaigns

B-to-B Campaigns

33% Audience Interests 77%

67% Geography 5%

N/A Demographics 18% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Opt-In New s, Q1-2002


96


Information related to personal interests and activities is the most effective among the various data elements that can be used to target consumer-oriented email marketing campaigns, according to 77% of marketers surveyed by Opt-In News. Among B-to-B marketers, targeting based on geography and demographics is identified by approximately two-thirds (67%) of respondents as the most effective tactic. The ultimate conversion rate for email marketing campaigns is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including campaign objectives, business sector, price point, and landing page design and copy, to name just a few. Jupiter Media Metrix reports that conversion rates also vary between customer acquisition and retention-focused efforts. One-half of the marketers surveyed by e-Dialog achieved an overall average conversion rate of 5% or less from their email campaigns. Jupiter estimates that the average conversion rate is 2% for customer acquisition campaigns and 3% for customer retention campaigns.

6.17 Average Conversion Rate For Email Campaigns (2002) As a percent of survey respondents

60% 50% 40% 40% 30%

24% 17%

20% 10%

9%

10% 0% < 1%

1 - 5%

5 - 10%

> 10%

Don't Track



97


Slightly less than one-half (47%) of the marketers that we surveyed employ email newsletter advertising and sponsorships. Consumer marketers are the most likely to use this particular tactic while mixed audience marketers are the least likely. Among the survey respondents that already use email newsletter sponsorships, almost two-thirds (65%) of B-to-B marketers plan to increase their spending on them through the remainder of 2002 and 28% expect to maintain their spending at the current levels. The majority (54%) of consumer marketers also plan to increase their use of newsletter sponsorships while 39% intend to continue at their current spending level. Only 7% of the respondents have any plans to reduce their use of email newsletter sponsorships.

6.18 How Many Marketers Use Email Newsletter Sponsorships As a percent of survey respondents

100% 80% 60%

49.7%

45.4%

45.0%

B-to-B Marketers


40% 20% 0% B-to-C Marketers


6.19 Trends In The Use Of Email Newsletter Sponsorships As a percent of survey respondents



Plan To Decrease Use 100% 80% 65.4% 60% 40% 20%

62.0%

53.5% 39.0% 29.5%

28.4% 7.5%

6.3%

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers

8.4%

0% Mixed Audience Marketers



98


How One Technology Marketer Uses Email Newsletter Sponsorships To Maximizes His Marketing ROI Like many technology marketers, Greg Govatos, Vice President of Marketing for Chutney Technologies, has a complicated product to explain, “We need to educate customers about a problem they’re probably not even aware of.” Last year, Govatos committed to a three-point plan to build an opt-in list for Chutney, so he could educate prospects via e-mail instead of at expensive in-person events the company had traditionally relied upon. “In custom e-mail blasts, we have seen HTML draw 2-to-1 better.” He's also found Thursdays are his best day of the week to send an e-mail campaign out on. “Early in the week, people are trying to focus on getting ramped up. People have checked out on Friday. On Thursday they still have focus. It’s the day I typically catch up on e-mail.” Unlike broadcast campaigns, Govatos has noticed little to no difference between the success of HTML versus text for newsletter sponsorships. “It doesn’t seem to matter. This may be because prospects are reading e-mail newsletters for content, not pretty graphics.“ Newsletter sponsorships have also proven to be more cost-effective than renting broadcast lists. Govatos says, “E-mail blasts work well, but newsletters are better for the money. I typically pay four times the CPM on the e-mail blast, but I don’t get four times the click through or four times the opt-in. With the newsletter, I get the exposure even if I don’t get the click through. I also know how many get to the form, but don’t fill it out. At least half who get to form fill it out. I end up with about the same absolute number.” The niche newsletters significantly out-performed more general newsletters, partially because Govatos made the effort to tailor creative to each vehicle. He explains, “Specialty content providers did much better. You can align the product with the specific audience – with very highly targeted content in a specific tech area. It’s much more effective than news-of-theday from a big-name magazine. The message can fit in with editorial content being offered – because I know what that’s going to be on a narrowly targeted newsletter - so we don’t stick out like an ad. Although lower ad positions seemed more cost effective than top positions, results showed the top was worth paying extra for. Govatos says, “I will fight tooth and nail to get the top position. At minimum, get the table of contents, which everyone will read. That’s much better than middle or at bottom. We’ve gotten middle positions a couple of times, and response rates were about half of the top position, which doesn’t make sense when you’re paying 70% of the top position. I’ll only do that if there’s a newsletter that’s infrequent, and the top position is sold out, and only until I can get the top position.” Read the full case study at: http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=1962

The trend in click-through rates from email newsletter sponsorships among survey respondents during the past 12 months lies roughly between the trends for house email lists and for third-party opt-in lists…not quite as favorable as house lists and better than third-party lists. The majority of all respondents reported that their click-through rates have changed little or not at all since mid-2001. Almost one-in-four (22%) have experienced a significant decline in results while 17% reported that their clickthrough rates have increased significantly over the past year. Consumer marketers are the most likely to report a deterioration in results and mixed audience marketers are the least likely to have experienced any significant change in click-through rates, either up or down. MarketingSherpa estimates that a click-through rate of 0.5% to 3% is a reasonable expectation for email newsletter sponsorship ads that are well targeted and employ effective creative. The majority (52%) of our survey respondents report that their overall average


99


click-through rate for email newsletter sponsorships is less than 3%. The largest proportion of marketers claimed an average click-through rate of 5% or higher (34% of respondents) followed by marketers with rates of 2.0-2.9% (18% of respondents) and rates of 1.0-1.9% (14% of respondents).

6.20 Click Through Rate Trend For Email Newsletter Sponsorships As a percent of survey respondents

B-to-C Marketers

B-to-B Marketers


100% 80%

67.7% 58.9% 61.1%

60% 40% 20%

26.7% 14.4%

17.7% 15.6%

21.1%

16.7%


Little To No Change



6.21 Average Click Through Rate For Email Newsletter Sponsorships As a percent of survey respondents

< 0.5%

10.7%

0.5 - 0.9%

8.7% 14.1%

1.0 - 1.9% 2.0 - 2.9%

18.1%

3.0 - 3.9%

8.7% 6.0%

4.0 - 4.9%

33.6%

5.0%+ 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



100


6.22 Email Newsletter Click-Through Rates From Select MarketingSherpa Case Studies Marketer

Sector

Year

Click Rate

HCPro

Vertical Media

2000

5-10%

Lounge Lizard

Business Services

2001

5%

Cabot Heritage

Financial Media

2001

2-3%

Element K

Business Services

2002

2%

TechTarget

Technology Media

2002

1-2%


Comments Average click-on-ad range for company’s own email newsletter targeting healthcare professionals Click-rate for direct response text ads was up to 5%; best performing banner, “ORGASMIC BANNER DESIGN” got a 16% response Click rate is number of readers who clickthrough and actually sign-up for free trial; Has achieved response as high as 1011% from some lists Newsletters selected based on job-related demographics (title, company size, etc.); Negotiated for top position whenever possible Average click-on-ad rate for company’s own titles; Readers who click on ads tend to convert into sales leads (by registering on a landing page) by about 30-50% Source: MarketingSherpa Inc.

101


Appendix Data Sources And Contact Information


102


The charts, tables, and other data provided in this report are all sourced from published, publicly-available information produced by the following organizations: Brightmail Inc. www.brightmail.com DoubleClick Inc. www.doubleclick.com e-Dialog Inc. www.e-dialog.com Forrester Research www.forrester.com The Gallup Organization www.gallup.com Gartner Group, Inc./GartnerG2 www.gartner.com Harris Interactive Inc. www.harrisinteractive.com Insight Express www.insightexpress.com InStat Group/MDR www.instat.com International Data Corp. (IDC) www.idcresearch.com Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) www.iab.net Ipsos-Reid Corp. www.ipsos-reid.com/ Jupiter Media Metrix www.jup.com Mediamark Research www.mediamark.com MessageLabs Ltd. www.messagelabs.com


NFO WorldGroup, Inc. www.nfow.com Nielsen/NetRatings Inc. www.netratings.com The NPD Group Inc. www.npd.com Opt-In News www.optinnews.com Pew Research Center www.pewinternet.org Quris Inc. www.quris.com Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. www.roper.com Scarborough Research www.scarborough.com Taylor Nelson Sofres and TNS Intersearch www.tnsofres.com UCLA Internet Project www.ccp.ucla.edu U.S. Census Bureau www.census.gov Valentine Radford, Inc. www.valrad.com Vertical Response, Inc. www.verticalresponse.com WebSideStory, Inc. www.websidestory.com The Yankee Group www.yankeegroup.com Yesmail Inc. www.yesmail.com

103


About MarketingSherpa, Inc. MarketingSherpa, Inc. is a media company publishing useful news, Case Studies, and best practices data about Internet and integrated marketing for advertising, marketing and PR professionals. Our reporters and editors interview dozens of marketing professionals every month to ask them, "What's really working for you online?" Then we share their tactics, advice and results with you in our newsletters, special reports and on our Web site. Yes, 100% of the articles you'll see at MarketingSherpa were written exclusively for you from us. Our name "Sherpa" refers to the Sherpas of Nepal who guide climbers up Mount Everest. We picked it instead of "MarketingGuru" because we're not the stars here -- you are. We're just your friendly native guides who help make your tough climb toward marketing greatness a bit easier MarketingSherpa, Inc. can be found at: www.marketingsherpa.com

About The Intermarket Group LP The Intermarket Group LP is a San Diego, California-based publisher focused on reference material about the “business of technology.” The company's periodic reports and subscription-based continuous information services cover various aspects of the tech sector, e-commerce, and the Internet and online services. Intermarket's customer base is primarily comprised of leading financial institutions and Global 2,000 corporates as well as a wide variety of technology companies and "dot coms" involved in both business-to-consumer and businessto-business markets. Intermarket's publications and services combine value-added reporting and analysis with both proprietary and third-party content/data to help organizations navigate in today's rapidly evolving, technology-centric business environment. The Intermarket Group can be found at: www.intermarketgroup.com


104

Email Marketing Metrics Guide: Data for marketers on email use & the activities and plans of mailers

Recommend Documents