When email marketing was a child, it wanted to be all about information. Content fairly burst from subscriber in-boxes like so many rollicking games in the backyard.  Broadcasts filled with news, product updates, what's on sale, and why certain brands rock.  As the channel matured, it got a bit more charming and emerged as a key player for interaction. Clicks mean revenue---and a lot of it.  Email marketing is so successful in generating revenue that the channel often is limited to this aspect of its opportunity.  Certainly, email marketing is best known in the C-suite for the revenue it generates.

Yet the channel is still not satisfied.  As the in-box fragmented into so many devices, social networks, and specialty mailboxes, engagement became more important.  Mailbox providers like Yahoo! and Gmail---immune to the revenue contribution that so enthralls business owners---are  paying a lot more attention to whether anyone actually opens or reads or interacts with messages.  Otherwise, email is relegated to the junk folder.  The inverse of the click through rate is not neutral.  If 10% clicked, that means 90% didn't.  Mailbox providers increasingly judge marketers on the 90% who are inactive.

In response, the email channel remains ambitious and continues to evolve.  Today, email marketing is no longer one size fits all. It's part broadcast, part transaction-driver, part loyalty, and engagement succor.  In fact, because of this diversity of roles, email has become the glue by which marketers start and nurture conversations with subscribers and customers.

Glue? Is that an advancement from immaturity?  I think so---and so, it seems, do others who participated with me (@StephanieSAM) in the MarketingProfs Twitter conversation on Friday (Jan. 14) as part of the #profschat series.

1. At the start of the session, I tossed out a definition of "conversational glue" to be a series of messages that nurture/engage over time.  As we conversed, consensus focused around creating "content/messaging, over time, with a purpose, that is meaningful to customers." And  @megfowler summed it up well, "Conversational glue is that sweet spot where your interests and your readers' interests mesh."



2. @jvanrijn got provocative, offering,  "Conversation can also be non-interactive. I'm not making myself popular with marketers, but not all messages need a response."  We debated that for a while, and determined that in conversations, we do want to drive a response---or at least encourage another step in some direction. Other goals may be reached with messaging that doesn't drive a response. To this point, @megfowler said, "Give them ways to respond/actions to take that benefit them. That adoption tells a huge story."



3. We noted that newsletters that share information are not conversations. Still valuable, but not interactive in the same way as a conversation. We also discussed how promotions that focus on conversions and transactions are not conversations. I don't need to converse with you to buy something.  Both of those are great uses of email marketing. They are just not conversations.



4. The timing of conversations builds value in both information and promotional messaging.  A conversation can drive a purchase.  A purchase can improve a customer's willingness to have a conversation.  All these types of email marketing can synchronize and support each other.  A few participants noted that balance is important, as is timing.   A great tweet from @livepath speaks to this point: "conversation before conversion ... and listening never optional."



5. We brainstormed ways that marketers can collect data in order to customize experiences.  Past responses, surveys, competitive analysis, social communities, and comments on your blog are some of those offered.  And@sharonmostyn added, " what YOU have to offer/differentiating factor"---a reminder that we must always work to show value in every message and at every touchpoint. And  @CarissaO reminded us, "So many brands struggle to know what their customers really want: The opp to ask is always there."



6. That got us talking about content development.  Self-interest and internal pressure often prioritize what's important to the brand rather than what's important to subscribers.  I wondered aloud during the #profschat if "sometimes [there is] a disconnect between marketer desire to have conversation & subscriber willingness to converse."  The marketer must become an advocate for the subscriber and not just for altruistic reasons.  Simply, relevancy improves response and revenue.



7. We debated if there should be more than one call to action (CTA) in any email message.  If email is the glue, must it be linear?  Most of the participants agreed that one CTA is all that most subscribers can effectively absorb and act upon.  Secondary calls to action can be provided if you have trouble getting internal teams to commit to one CTA.  My suggestion that "if you need more than on CTA then you have a segmentation problem" was widely re-tweeted.  @pcmguy offered that " CTA doesn't have to be a sale; Easier to get a relationship first then the sale."  Now, that is conversation power!



8. Several participants talked about the importance of landing pages to the conversation, particularly when it comes to continuing a conversation once started.  @megfowler said, "Landing pages can build a conversation if they continue offering ways to respond and give feedback. Social elements help."   @ChrisFougereHFX offered a widely retweeted insight: "Saw quote ystrdy "goal of landing/home pg is to get you off it!"    @Javiervw: suggested that "Landing pages are probably a continuation of the story to entice a call to action."



9. We also talked a bit about the weather.  That's just the nature of a Twitter chat!