esses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underestiTwo recent studies indicate that neither B2C nor B2B marketers are using e-mail marketing effectively in spite of its inherent qualities. Forrester found 62 of 63 campaigns lacking and E-Mail Data Source found a boat load of issues with 355 retailers they studied. It looks like e-mail marketing is much easier said than done.

Forrester created a 10 criteria methodology to score e-mail marketing programs from more than 60 companies in 6 categories: business services, consumer goods, financial services, media retail and travel. E-mail Data Source looked at 10 retail segments from office supplies, apparel and electronics to HBA and supermarkets. Both assumed that marketers use e-mail to engage and possibly convert prospects and customers from passive interest to action. Both posit a direct causative correlation between e-mail campaigns and website traffic.

Both analysts are strutting their stuff -- Forrester's crack analysts and E-mail Data Source's E-mail Analyst Database. Neither have spiffed me but both identified a series of common problems which they reckon degrade the ability of e-mail marketing campaigns to accomplish marketers' primary objectives.

The Common Faults

1. Not in the Game.
27 of the campaigns in the Forrester set and 30% of the retailers did not capture e-mail addresses in the most obvious spot, the upper reaches of their website home pages. So roughly a third either missed their chance to play or consciously passed on the opportunity to engage customers and prospects.

2. Questionable Credibility
Many of the campaigns did not have physical addresses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underesti

grams from more than 60 companies in 6 categories: business services, consumer goods, financial services, media retail and travel. E-mail Data Source looked at 10 retail segments from office supplies, apparel and electronics to HBA and supermarkets. Both assumed that marketers use e-mail to engage and possibly convert prospects and customers from passive interest to action. Both posit a direct causative correlation between e-mail campaigns and website traffic.

Both analysts are strutting their stuff -- Forrester's crack analysts and E-mail Data Source's E-mail Analyst Database. Neither have spiffed me but both identified a series of common problems which they reckon degrade the ability of e-mail marketing campaigns to accomplish marketers' primary objectives.

The Common Faults

1. Not in the Game.
27 of the campaigns in the Forrester set and 30% of the retailers did not capture e-mail addresses in the most obvious spot, the upper reaches of their website home pages. So roughly a third either missed their chance to play or consciously passed on the opportunity to engage customers and prospects.

2. Questionable Credibility
Many of the campaigns did not have physical addresses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underesti

correlation between e-mail campaigns and website traffic.

Both analysts are strutting their stuff -- Forrester's crack analysts and E-mail Data Source's E-mail Analyst Database. Neither have spiffed me but both identified a series of common problems which they reckon degrade the ability of e-mail marketing campaigns to accomplish marketers' primary objectives.

The Common Faults

1. Not in the Game.
27 of the campaigns in the Forrester set and 30% of the retailers did not capture e-mail addresses in the most obvious spot, the upper reaches of their website home pages. So roughly a third either missed their chance to play or consciously passed on the opportunity to engage customers and prospects.

2. Questionable Credibility
Many of the campaigns did not have physical addresses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underesti

n the Game.
27 of the campaigns in the Forrester set and 30% of the retailers did not capture e-mail addresses in the most obvious spot, the upper reaches of their website home pages. So roughly a third either missed their chance to play or consciously passed on the opportunity to engage customers and prospects.

2. Questionable Credibility
Many of the campaigns did not have physical addresses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underesti

esses, were not CAN SPAM compliant, had no opt-out mechanism or links to set or adjust e-mail preferences and many had no explicit or links to privacy policy. Among retailers less than 5% used double opt-in techniques to validate addresses and subscriptions. Urgency, cheapness and a devil-may-carte attitude characterizes companies who flout the established conventions. Yet frequently these guts underestimate the impact of their sloppiness or greed on customers who have come to expect certain privacy guarantees and some baseline courtesies of identification and choice.

3. Doubtful Messaging
More than half of the Forrester subject lines did NOT hint at the value to the user. And in only 11 of the 63 cases could you just scan the e-mail and pick up the basic message. Is it any surprise why opens and click-thrus are generally so low or sell-through is so difficult? Similarly a clear statement of purpose and benefit separated the successful retail e-mailers from the also-rans who found no reason to explain what they were doing, why or how it benefits customers to participate. As if customer confusion was a stated goal, 33% of retailers didn't send anything in the first 30 days of signing up for e-mail and 21% never sent a welcome message.

It’s clear that any idiot can blast out e-mail or collect e-mail addresses. What's less clear is how to use a ubiquitous, fast, responsive medium responsibly for optimum effect in generating customer awareness, attention and repeated action.