Email's Future Through the Lens of History

I worked in public broadcasting for many years, and we faced a paradox: people said they hated the pledge drive, but they always gave, making drives one of the most profitable ways of fundraising for stations. For many years the same paradox held true for telemarketing. It was universally despised, but effective.

History is repeating itself with email marketing. People report that they are overwhelmed by email and that they feel like they are being 'spammed'. But there is a significant difference between email and television or phone marketing: email has the capacity to deliver value to the customer beyond the actual product.

Whether it's newsletters that include recipes using particular items, top ten apps for the iPhone, or promotions that customers might not otherwise discover, good email provides substantive content that draws the reader in and bonds them to the brand. Traditional television commercials, because of limited time, can't offer real substance. Neither can it be accomplished with a strictly conversion-oriented strategy like phone sales.

I'm skeptical that social will displace email for just this reason. Twitter, for example, can't offer the kind of consolidated value-add content available in one place -- it has to drive people back to individual content pages. Facebook offers more leeway, but because it's a closed network, will be more difficult for marketers to penetrate meaningfully. Both have the drawback that they require customers to go to an intermediary site versus receive email directly.

Equally important, telemarketing always felt intrusive and time-consuming. Email allows the customer to passively engage. For that reason it is likely to outlast its innovation marketing predecessors.