Back then, you and I may have met.
You know, back then when I had a weekly column in a New York City newspaper. One of my most (in)famous columns detailed the drama of a bad haircut at a “top & trendy” salon. Maybe you read it.
I called the haircut a Cyclops Bob. They called “it” a one-eyed trend. They informed me “Everyone” was doing it. I told them it wasn’t me and asked for scissors.
They sulked. I wrote an article about “it” (and my cut bangs myself).
So, what’s this got to do with lists? A whole heck of a lot.
As the economy and advertising budgets have declined, a new trend has emerged. Rather than looking at case studies as sources for ideas, agencies have begun to benchmark them as justifications for a cut of their client’s budget pie. But, just like the Cyclops Bob made no sense, this strategy is also senseless. “Everyone” doing “it” doesn’t make “it” the sensible thing to do.
To better examine why this justification isn’t justifiable let’s go back to list basics for a moment, shall we?
Let’s say Retailer A ran an e-mail and SMS (short message service) campaign six months ago. They did pretty well and ran the campaign again.
Now Retailer B’s agency comes along and wants the analytics and case study from A’s campaign to justify B’s use of the medium.
Where’s the flaw? Pretty much everywhere. So, let’s fill in the blanks.
Retailer A did a geo-specific e-mail with matching SMS to specific consumers to promote a specific sale. They planned specific events in markets they identified as prime performers for their brick and mortar locations, in that season. They further segmented the consumer list with age, gender income and ethnicity selects that matched their profiled top-spending customers in those markets during that season. They used geo-specific creatives with matching jump pages for e-mail and geo-specific SMS messages with matching WAP pages for their mobile campaign. Their campaign worked for them because they took the time to do what made sense–for them.
For Retailer “B’s” agency to use the analytics on “A’s” campaign as a benchmark for whether that specific consumer list for e-mail or SMS will work for their client is essentially useless. It wasn’t the medium or the list that worked. It was the planning + the list + the medium that worked.
When “B” does their flight it will involve a list that is different. Creatives that are different. Jump pages and WAP (wireless application protocol) sites that are different. The analytics on A’s’ use of e-mail and SMS will in no way be an indicator of B’s success in those mediums.
Looking at the concept of A’s campaign is what B’s agency should be studying. A wasn’t successful because they used e-mail with matching SMS. They were successful because they used a list that was carefully crafted to maximize the potential of a medium in a well-thought-out campaign.
A’s list was created to reflect a buying group they already knew was specifically interested in their product because they used their own benchmarks as a guide
Network
