UK-based publishing consultancy, providing training, marketing campaign and market research support, and consultancy to publishers in the UK and internationally

Send us a quick enquiry or comment

Name
Email*

*Required only so that we can reply to you

 

We promise that a real human being will respond to your query, usually within 24 hours. If you prefer to phone us, you are just as welcome to do so on:

+44 (0)20 8977 2741

Your question
 

Marketability eBulletin

Welcome to our latest fortnightly eBulletin, posted here on 6 April 2022. In this issue:


Free Email Marketing Benchmarks Report for 2022

I welcomed last year’s report from Campaign Monitor and now they’ve done it again, comparing email metrics across 100bn emails sent during 2021, organised into 18 different sectors. So if you are continually wondering how well your emails are doing, this is a great place to get a sense of what’s ‘typical’ to compare them to.

All reports like this are skewed by the clients using the provider, and although publishing is one of the sectors it’s bundled in with media and entertainment, so that’s pretty broad. There’s also no way of knowing what types of publishing are represented here. Overwhelmingly newspapers and magazines going to a consumer audience? That would have little in common with a scientific journals publisher’s emails sent to academics.

But 100bn emails is a LOT of data, and it is fascinating to compare the stats for different sectors and consider what they reflect. For instance, the best performing sector is education, which makes complete sense given the reliance on online teaching through 2021. Travel is down ... no surprise there, either.

Some quick takeaways:

  • Open rates are up across the board. The ‘average’ (ie across all the data) from 18% to 21.5%, with publishing up from 20.8% to 23.9%
  • BUT Apple’s new Mail Privacy Protection, released during 2021, doesn’t use open rate tracking, but marks delivered emails as opened by default. As more customers use MPP, open rates will automatically increase, something you should be able to track by looking at the stats of subscribers using Apple Mail. It looks as though open rates were artificially inflated in 2021, and that will continue.
  • Click through rates are down, again for everyone. Average from 2.6% to 2.3%, publishing from 3.6% to 2.9%.
  • This is also true of click-to-open rates, the most useful metric as these clicks are a subset only of the opened emails, so are a direct reflection of the email content. Publishing has gone down from 17.5% to 12.4% (average was 14.10% to 10.5%).
  • This appears to tell us that more people are limiting their engagement to what they read in the inbox. And this makes sense too, as during the previous year of lockdowns people were signing up to more emails but engaging less than they had in the past.
I don’t think we’ll ever see reports that give us direct comparisons to measure ourselves against, and in any case, the most important benchmark is the data from our past campaigns. But this still makes fascinating reading for all you email marketers out there. Read the Campaign Monitor Email Marketing Benchmarks Report 2022.

If this has whetted your appetite, take a look at our Email Marketing Workshop. This really comes into its own as a tailored in-company course, as we look at your current email performance before the course and then build the training on top of that.

 


Putting customer criticism into perspective, two examples this month

We’ve probably all been there. What you thought was an innocuous piece of copy is met with a vitriolic comment which first baffles and then alarms.

When this happened to the second of two current clients this month, I thought it was time to respond.

Example 1: The back cover of an academic title about the history of colonialism included copy that would originally have come from the author, with one phrase (also probably the author’s) that inflamed a customer who bought the book. That customer emailed to complain, accusing the publisher of promoting ‘white supremacist views’. Having seen the phrase, I’m not sure that warning bells would have alerted me to change it.

What did the publisher do? Apologised for causing offence, cited the author’s impeccable credentials, changed the copy on the website, moved on.

Example 2: The education publisher who published a blog post about assessing children with visual impairments. A very practical, upbeat post by teachers who were addressing this in their schools. Tweets alerted other teachers who recognised this challenge to the helpful post.

One reply caustically said ‘what a pity your own products aren’t designed well for the visually impaired’.

What did the publisher do? Stopped tweeting about the article, and responded offline to the poster of the comment. Social media can quickly become poisonous if threads get distracted and out of control. I should also mention that this poster’s caustic remarks elsewhere on social media had been noticed before.

What should they both do?

Put both of these into perspective. The most useful thing we can learn from them is that there have always been, and always will be, odd individuals to throw us a scary curve ball that makes us question our judgement. Neither of these were the publisher’s ‘fault’. What we should emphatically NOT do is rein back and write bland, ‘safe’ copy instead. Meanwhile, like the professionals we are, we apologise for causing offence. And move on.

Our Copywriting Workshop can’t cater for every scenario, but it does look at how to make good judgements, what to watch out for, and how to be bold enough to get (the right sort of) attention.

 


Can you spot what’s ‘out of place’?

Do any of you remember the psychologist’s video in which viewers are tasked to count the number of times a baseball is passed between players? As the action unfolds, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the court. None of the viewers notice because they’re concentrating on counting. They are shocked when they are told.

Here’s another one. Think you have a keen eye for detail? Not much gets past you? Last month David Crotty shared this video on Scholarly Kitchen, named ‘Illusion of the Year’ by the Neural Correlate Society.

 


Tip of the week: Why ‘I’ve made this copy up’ can be a very good sign

Emma Phillips is Head of Marketing at Class Professional Publishing. During the practical work feedback session in a recent Copywriting Workshop she opened by saying ‘I’ve made some of this up so will have to check it before actually using it’.

The reason I love this is that it shows that Emma was driven by the needs of the customer, rather than the possible limitations of the product details she had in front of her. Sometimes the most compelling fact we can say about a product is omitted from the description handed to us to work with. It’s one of our jobs as marketers to see things from the customer’s perspective and fill in the gaps. Always accurately, naturally.

 

 

 

Marketability (UK) Ltd

12 Sandy Lane
Teddington
Middlesex
England
TW11 0DR

Tel +44 (0)20 8977 2741
contact@marketability.info