Let’s create effective emails, whether they’re personalized or not.
Let’s have fun doing it. But let’s not have a blast.
A while back I was reading an AI newsletter. In it, I learned about a new platform called Brandblast. Immediately I rolled my eyes.
Why so judgmental? I promise, it’s no reflection on the product. I don’t know anything about it, other than it’s a social automation platform. I haven’t even been to their website. Maybe it’s a terrific solution. I wish ’em all the luck in the world.
The problem I have is with the name: Brandblast. Why do we have to say “blast”?
Unfortunately, my fellow marketers have used this word for a long time. Primarily I hear “email blasts.” Sometimes “text blasts.” I’m even old enough to remember “fax blasts.”
Me no likey. Why would you want to blast someone? And who would want to be blasted?
I’m a word guy. Words mean things. A blast is something you do to someone. Not for someone. As such, I think it fosters the wrong attitude when we’re communicating with customers and prospects. It says we’re messaging at them. Instead of to them… or for them… or ideally, about them.
It’s an assault. Fire away!
This represents pure self-interest. And a disregard for the needs or feelings of the recipient. In other words, it’s vain. Which is one of The 4 ways your message works against you™.
I decided I had to speak up about this idiomatic issue. So I consulted my friend Frank Lanigan. A talented writer, Frank has experience with content and technology, and worked a stint at Google. He brought some technical perspective to the table.
One thing I learned from Frank is that an “email blast” is an actual thing. Like, it doesn’t mean the general act of sending an email. It refers to a specific type of email. One that’s generic (non-segmented and non-personalized) and delivered to a mass audience.
My first reaction? “Yeah! See? That totally proves my point. The ‘blaster’ is only thinking about what they want to push out to everyone. They’re not thinking about their recipients.”
Congratulations to me — I’m the one millionth person to realize this is a bad idea.
Case in point: Frank shared with me a post written by Jim Rudall, the head of EMEA at Intuit MailChimp. Rudall says it’s time to “put the blast in the past.” In its place, he promotes the use of segmentation, automation, and AI to help to deliver a more personalized message.
At first, I’m digging this. Personalization is certainly one way to make a message customer-centric, at least in the way that I define it. A message is customer-centric when it’s not just for the customer; it’s about the customer.
I got curious and did a little more research. Basically — I’m using my own terms here — there are three types of emails: Personal. Impersonal. And Personalized. No doubt you know this already, but bear with me through some examples ’cause I’m going somewhere with this.
| Email type | Sender/recipient | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Personal | From Bob, to his friend Joe | “Hey man, wanna go catch our limit this weekend? The bass are calling. We need some new lures.” |
| Impersonal | From outdoor store, to list | “In stock: Widest selection of lures for all kinds of fish.” |
| Personalized | From outdoor store, to list | “Bob, we’ve got the widest selection of lures for bass.” |
Of these examples, the Impersonal email would be considered a blast. Because it’s the same message for all recipients.
So as I understand it, the modern thinking is that a blast is automatically bad. And personalized is automatically good.
But hold on. I don’t think that’s necessarily so.
Personalization can be dangerous.
This cautionary tale comes courtesy of Cammi Stanley, editor at Counterpart: “This post reminded me of horror stories about mail merge/personalized emails. When I first started at [another company], I read about a political campaign that used an unfortunate placeholder that never got replaced. So the fundraising letters began with ‘Dear rich bastard.’”
Take a look at those examples again. I would argue that the Personalized email is not truly customer-centric. Because it’s not really about Bob. I mean yeah, there’s a field that gets populated with his name. But look at the message: “We’ve got….” This message is about the store, not about Bob. They’re bragging about their selection. And this makes it vain.
The fix is to make Bob the subject of the sentence:
“Bob, you’ll love our wide selection of bass lures.”
See the difference? By using “you” instead of “we,” the message is now about Bob instead of the store and its inventory.
The Impersonal example above can be made customer-centric too, using the same technique:
“You love to catch bass. And you love to try new lures. Maybe you’ll have better luck this weekend if you tried some of ours. Here you’ll find the widest selection around.”
That’s four times in a row that the customer (“you”) is the subject of the sentence. This is what I mean by customer-centric: About the customer.
This feels intimate. Without ever calling the customer by name.
This means you get the power of personalization without the cost and effort of personalization.
So here’s the thing. Are we really going to tell the world that all emails are garbage unless you can afford segmentation, automation, and AI? If so, what are the moms and pops gonna do?
Besides, it’s not true.
Is personalization ideal? Yes. Can it make an email more effective? Yes, but it’s not a given.
However, when you make the customer the subject of your sentences — and especially if you employ all of The 4 things that make a message work™ — you can make impersonal emails feel personal. In fact, you can make any email more effective. Even an email blast.
Just don’t use the term blast. At least not around me.
