MARKETERS THAT believe getting permission to send e-mail to their customers equals a “get out of spamming accusations free” card are in for a rude awakening. A new survey on consumer reactions to e-mail demonstrates that firms can comply with both legislated and recommended practices and still alienate their customers.
The research project, hosted by the Philadelphia-based Wharton Forum on Electronic Commerce, found that more than 14% of all respondents indicated that although they had given such permission, they did not enjoy receiving e-mail when it was perceived as spam. Put another way, nearly one in seven customers said they found this marketing tactic at least somewhat alienating.
Another 20% were neutral on the issue. Forty-five percent said they either agreed or strongly agreed that they liked receiving such e-mails, with the remainder expressing either mild sympathy or antipathy for them.
Respondents were somewhat more evenly split when asked whether government regulation banning spam is needed. While nearly 24% either agreed or strongly agreed, 21.6% fell on the opposite end of the spectrum, disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
By far the greatest percent were neutral (26.6%), while 11% disagreed slightly and 16% agreed slightly.
Respondents said they received an average of 33 e-mails a day, of which more than three in 10 were considered unwanted. More than 25% of all respondents said that at least half of what they receive is spam.
The sheer volume of messages received may play into consumer discontent. More than half agreed that it takes them a lot of time and energy to read and delete these messages, as opposed to just over one in five who disagreed.
The number of communications over time from a single marketer also caused consumers to label communication they had opted in for as spam. More than 70% of the respondents said that when a company they had agreed to receive messages from sends communications too frequently, they consider these messages spam, and nearly half of the entire respondent base felt strongly this was the case.
In contrast, 14.2% said even a constant bombardment of messages, if sent by a marketer that had received the consumer’s consent, was not spam. Just under 15% had no opinion.
So, how often is too often? Assuming the offers were coming from companies the consumers like, three out of four said daily communication would constitute overkill. Even if the messages come on a weekly basis, more than half (52.4%) felt that level would be considered spam.
When the proposed level of contact dropped to once per month, consumer reactions shifted dramatically. Nearly 52% said that at this pace, these messages would not constitute spam, with another 21% remaining neutral on the subject.
Consumers were less likely to be turned off by longer messages (more than three paragraphs) than by frequent contact. Asked about offers they felt were attractive, only one-third felt these automatically constituted spam, compared with more than 40% who said they would not consider longer messages spam.
What really sets customers off is e-mail that does not reflect their relationship with the company. Communications that are relevant are welcome; those that are not alienate them. Offers, for instance, for products that are above the price point established between the consumer and the marketer annoyed more than six out of 10 recipients, while only 17% said they would not consider such messages spam.
Oddly enough, respondents were more put off by offers outside their price range than by those containing several offers, some of which were irrelevant. Only 40% said that messages that contained a mix of appropriate and inappropriate offers (such as airfare deals that did not originate in the recipient’s home city) were spam, as opposed to 36% who said they weren’t.
Consumers were also turned off by pressure tactics such as “respond by” limitations, even for offers that they liked. Fifty-two percent said that even if they liked the offer, they would consider such messages spam, as opposed to only 28% who said they wouldn’t.
“The greater the specificity of targeting, the less likely it is going to be viewed as spam,” explains Jerry Lohse, research director for Wharton Forum on Electronic Commerce. “Even in permission-based e-mail, people still viewed the e-mail that was sent to them as spam rather than as an offer that was sent to them,” he says. “If you violate all the practices that direct marketers have put together through previous research in the brick-and-mortar world, people will treat it as junk mail and then chuck it.”
That is, if they receive it at all. Some respondents said they were taking an active role in reducing the amount of messages they receive. Nearly one in four said they use filtering software to sort and delete spam messages from their e-mail, while 37% said they use such software to block e-mail from specific senders.
The study was coordinated by Lohse and research fellow Steve Bellman. It was put in front of 1,625 consumers culled from the Wharton Virtual Test Market. The survey netted 522 responses, for a response rate of 32.1%.
Network
