11/07/2008 by Tony Attwood.

We are all used to getting junk emails. We can all recognise them a mile off. Bad grammar, every sentence ends with an exclamation mark, pictures that don’t load properly, crazy linguistic style, multiple colours and huge headlines that are almost bigger than the screen, use of certain set phrases that no one would ever say in a billion years, fake personalisation, broken links…

It’s a bit like describing a desk. Desks come in a million different shapes and sizes, but I know a desk when I trip over one. Same with junk emails - I know one when I see one.

Thus we look, and think - “junk”. Which is fine when it is junk - but not when it is a serious advert written by someone who does not know how to write adverts. Then the sender really goes down in our estimation.

About 50% of the email adverts that I am now sent to review, end up with my saying (in the nicest possible way) I am sorry, but I think you would be better off sending nothing - this could do you real damage.

Of course such ads can bring in one or two enquiries, but they will probably alienate many more people. Especially those who know a spot about the law - for example, that you are supposed to give the name and address of the company that is advertising, that you mustn’t send an advert for a private product to a person at work without their permission, and so on.

At the very least I would always say you should follow these four basic rules:

1. Collect half a dozen really good email adverts together and print them out, and ask, “why do I like these?”
2. Get a professional writer of email adverts to look at your piece before it goes out.
3. Test the email on a number of people who you can trust to give an honest opinion, and ask them questions including, did this look like junk?
4. If writing it yourself, only send out a small number at first.
5. Unless you are sure of your own skill get a pro to write it for you. It might seem a lot of money to pay, but it really can do a lot for your business.

Notice my slip - yup there were five points not four. Can’t win them all. (Now ask, have you ever seen a bit of total junk with a throw-away comment like this at the end? Just one of many ways of making your writing stand out from the rubbish).

Tony Attwood

Posted in Uncategorised | Print | No Comments »

02/07/2008 by Tony Attwood.

There is a report doing the rounds at the moment, which has been commented on in several places, in which the following question is asked:

“What is your best performing mailer (postcard, voucher, 6×9 etc) and is the recent postage hike and weakened economy forcing you to re-adjust your direct mail strategy? If so, how and why?”

Apparently lots of people answered by saying that the postcard was best for retail, marketing, healthcare and software.

Which on the face of it, looks amazing. Except for one problem.

As a study of the psychology of perception shows, how a person reacts to a mailer depends very much on how well they know the sender. In one way this is obvious - I read postcards from my daughters word by word, I keep them, I read them again. I’m soppy that way.

A postcard from a firm I’ve never heard of selling something that I am not responsible for buying doesn’t get me going at all.

As I say, that’s obvious. But what is not so obvious is the fact that we make our decisions as to how to treat these item according to how we perceive the sender. That affects the amount of brain power we give to the piece. Then, whether we read the piece or not is further affected by how much brain power it demands (lots and lots for colour pictures, far less for text).

So without knowing whether the postcards were sent to customers in love with their suppliers or just to a cold list, and without knowing whether the postcard contained pictures and other high demanding things or not - we are not getting very far.

Likewise we don’t know if the people who said “postcards is best” actually tried testing against anything else - like A4 letters. And if they did, did they keep the content the same.

And then we don’t know if (perhaps by chance) they obeyed the rules of the psychology of perception on the postcards but not on the letter.

In short, we know nothing. It was, at least as reported, a wholly useless piece of research. There are snippets in there which are worthwhile but not enough to start giving us proper stats on which to make a judgement.

All this is bad enough - but the worst thing is that this piece of research is just how much people everywhere are repeating it without questioning it. No wonder quite a few firms in the US felt the rise in postage prices was affecting them if they really are following this type of generalised advice.

Tony Attwood

Posted in Uncategorised | Print | No Comments »