Though this practice isnâ€™t anything new, Iâ€™ve noticed an increasing number of Internet marketers prefixing their email subjects with â€œRe:â€. For example: â€œRe: Make $1,000,000,000,000,000.87 for the rest of your entire life, ZOMG!â€
Right, so hereâ€™s the deal with that whole â€œRe:â€ thing: it implies your message is either dishonest or not worth reading in the first place. The reason it implies that is because youâ€™re trying to trick the person into reading the frigginâ€™ email in the first place by making them think youâ€™re just replying to something they sent you. I mean, that is what an email subject beginning with â€œRe:â€ typically means, right? A reply?
Of course, Iâ€™m not saying anything you folks engaging in this practice donâ€™t already realize, and Iâ€™m sure you all have your numbers and CTRs that justify the practice for you, but do they ever *actually* convert better for you? Highly subjective, I know, but Iâ€™ve never given the practice any real weight, nor will I be convinced of its effectiveness to convert (that is, make a sale more effectively than not sending a first-engagement email with â€œRe:â€ prefixed in the subject) until I see some seriously-hard data across myriad niches/markets.
Anyway, I think most people would remember if they sent an email to someone that said â€œMake $1,000,000,000,000,000.87 for the rest of your entire life, ZOMG!â€ Plus, would you ever walk up to someone youâ€™ve never spoken to before and start your conversation with the word â€œreplyâ€? I mean literally say the word â€œreplyâ€ to them the very first time you speak to them. Maybe if you wanted them to look at you like you were smoking the crack-rock, you wouldâ€¦
With all that said, hereâ€™s what has ultimately motivated me to rant about this practice now as opposed to, say, 3-6 months ago: the people Iâ€™ve received these types of emails from are Internet marketers who I knowingly gave my email address to in the first place!
Why the hell are you trying to trick ME â€” someone who knew what you were about enough to trust you with my email address in the first place â€” into reading your emails now!? Sadly, reading through all of these emails has yielded content that is used-up/recycled garbage; confirmation of the â€œdishonest/not-worth-readingâ€ I touched on above.
You know what that click was, Internet marketers using â€œRe:â€? Me, unsubscribing from your lists; thatâ€™s what!
Itâ€™s one thing to be an Internet marketer and to build trust with people such that they will happily sign up for your newsletter or future emails; however, itâ€™s another thing to shift gears and treat all of those people like theyâ€™re a part of the same lot of email addresses you scraped off the Internet. If anyone deserves a â€œget-out-of-jail-freeâ€ card, itâ€™s the group of people who already trust you!
So, if youâ€™re going to engage in lazy, spammy crap-marketing, at least make an effort to separate those who already trust you, from those youâ€™re trying sell sensationalism and/or re-spun content to. Otherwise, youâ€™re just going to start losing completely-trusting subscribers who are tired of you treating them like theyâ€™re stupid.
As far as Iâ€™m concerned, you can chalk this practice up as yet another example of Internet marketing shams, flimflams, and other BS. And thatâ€™s all I have to say about that.
Re: Thanks for reading my little rant for the day.
- The guru facade: Internet marketing shams, flimflams and other BS
- How to get rich quick and make TONS of money with SEO!
- Will 2012 be the most ridiculously-cliche year for advertising, ever?
- SEO Fun Friday: Converting Spam Emails into Page Views
- Itâ€™s time to get real, folks: Twitter and Facebook arenâ€™t fads and hereâ€™s why