I had a little rant on LinkedIn this month, and it sparked some interesting comments. In case you missed it, here was the content of my post:
OMG, if you email me twice and I don't respond either time, it's because I'm not interested!
It's not because "I'm super busy", or "I haven't got around to reading your emails yet", or "I might have missed the first 50 emails you sent me". It's because I'm NOT interested.
And, frankly, if you're upset that I haven't responded, that's your problem, not mine.
Why, why, why do some people think that if they keep bombarding their prospects with the same old c**p that one day their prospects will suddenly go, "OMG, this is amazing. Why haven't I responded sooner?"?
Many support my view, but my post did throw up some alternative opinions in support of the "bombard until you cave" approach:
- The recipient might genuinely miss your email the first few times.
- The recipient might not be ready to switch suppliers just now.
- People need to see your brand 4-10 times before they'll take action.
YES, I agree! BUT...
The emails I was referring to (perhaps I should have been more precise) are mass-mailed, impersonal and untargeted emails. I'm not interested in these offers because they're not relevant to me. And they won't ever be relevant to me no matter how many times they're pushed in my face.
So here's an alternative approach:
- Understand who you're emailing.
- Target the email and tailor it to the recipient.
- Create a campaign that follows a logical sequence.
- Provide something of value as well as a sales pitch.
Email marketing works but not when it's spamming.