Permission Mis-Step: Counterpoint
A few days ago, I shared the story of Eric and his use of LinkedIn to broadcast message to his network.
I had cleared this post w/Eric (name changed) and actually sent him the feedback prior to posting.
He’s offered up a counter-point argument.
Hi Jeremy: First, many thanks for taking the time to provide this insight, which was helpful to me. There are some ideas that I can take away from this and change accordingly. In any case, I'll do my best share my thoughts, even though they are better expressed over a beer (the opportunity is welcomed).
Wow, though--you are tough! I certainly don't want to end up like Diane your de-friended facebooker. Ouch--and after one email on my part! And it wasn't like I was sending you a Thanksgiving e-greeting card (yes, I did get one from a marketing company!), or an invitation to use Herbalife or Shacklee (side businesses which I don't--but could--have.)
Yes, I've read the mantra about email being relevant, personal, and anticipated--over and over, as a matter of fact. But after I read your note, I asked myself when WAS the last time I received an email that had all of those attributes?
My conclusion: never--at least not on a mass mailing. So, are people like you and I proselytizing a strategy that's effectively--unattainable? I would say so, no matter how much the web 2.0-ers will jump up and down, and get red in the face telling me that I'm wrong (hmm--what does that reaction tell you about their approach?).Anyway, I digress.
In any case, while I'm the last one to ardently defend any tactic that I use, regarding my use of LinkedIn--however flawed--I've continued it because it works. More than any other communication I've used, LinkedIn email gets read--and remembered.
Relevant? Anticipated? Personal? The answers to range from "yes" to "no," with "maybe" in between. But here's something that many younger, web-2.0 savvy marketers don't universally understand: There IS an age gap in e-communication.Full disclosure: I'm over 50. And so are many of the 230 or so people in my LinkedIn network. If I said "Twitter" to them, they would only know that it's something a bird does. "Web2.0?" --they glaze. Over 90% of the people in my network I know well, and 100% I've communicated with one-to-one. Not to sound arrogant, because I'm not, but most of the people who have responded to my LinkedIn email have read it because--well, it's from me.
Which doesn't cancel the relevant, anticipated, and personal argument, but it suggests that there are other factors that generate positive results. In my own situation, I open 100% of the LinkedIn emails I receive--even though I'm hardly considered a "power user." Why? Because it's sort of a "People Magazine" for my network. If Joe Smith uses LinkedIn to announce that he hiked the Appalachian Trail this summer, I'll read it with great zeal, because it's NOT expected! And I know Joe! If Joe announces something that's not relevant, I'll just delete it. But no, Joe doesn't piss me off because he sent it.
So, with that said, are there better, more efficient means for communication? Absolutely. Could I improve my processes and tactics? No doubt. Will I risk alienating people who don't want to read my email? Sure--but I have control over that by deciding who will be in my network.
Finally, regarding brand being all about credibility . . . sounds good, but I just finished reading "Buying In" by Rob Walker. He sure debunked some long-held beliefs I had! Now I'd say credibility is part of branding--it's just the "all about" part of it that I struggle with. His book brought to light things that I never thought of. What do you think?
This debate isn’t over….what do you think?
Comments
Gadi said on 9.22.2008 at 9:19 AM
I think Eric missed the point.
A mass mailing will never hit the points of building your micro brand. Now mass mailing will be successful to an extent. Why do you think spammers continue to spam people? If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
While you may have some short terms gains by sending that email, spending an hour to determine who should get your email and personalizing it to them would probably yield about the same short term gains, but more importantly, it yield much better long term gains, and deter the micro-branding hits from those who are not interested at all.
"If Joe Smith uses LinkedIn to announce that he hiked the Appalachian Trail this summer, I'll read it with great zeal, because it's NOT expected!"
Of course you would. He is not trying to sell you something. You can send unexpected emails, but if you are trying to get a customer, and subsequently turn him into a marketer for you, you should follow Jeremy's advice pretty closely.