The Effect of Subject Lines on Open Rates of Email Marketing Messages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.67.6749Abstract
This article investigates the effects of email subject lines on the open rate of email marketing messages. Based on previous literature, three different subject lines with distinctive elements of copywriting were developed: a (1) personal, (2) emotion eliciting and (3) short subject line. The open rates of emails with these subject lines were compared to the open rates of emails with a fourth subject line without these copywriting elements, the control group. An A/B test was conducted where an email marketing message sent to a total of 1,409,963 customers of bol.com. Recipients received an email with one out of four possible subject lines. Results show that all emails with subject lines including a distinctive element of copywriting had higher open rates compared to those with a subject line that belonged to the control group. The control group had an open rate of 24.3%, the personal subject line 25.0%, the short subject line 26.9% and the emotion inducing subject line 26.1%. The differences are statistically significant and substantive for bol.com. In conclusion, adjusting a subject line by influencing its content in terms of length, emotional triggers and personalization can all independently lead to a higher open rate of email marketing messages.
References
Aikat D and Remund D (2012) Of time magazine, 24/7 media, and data deluge: The evolution of information overload theories and concepts. In: Strother JN, Ulijin JM, Fazal Z. eds. Information overload: An international challenge for professional engineers and technical communicators. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 13-40.
Andersson M and Fredriksson MA (2014) Open or delete: decision-makers’ attitudes toward e-mail marketing messages. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (1): 133-144. bol.com (2015) Available at: www.bol.com (accessed 21 October 2015).
Blinker (2014) Het nationaal email onderzoek 2014 [The national email inquiry 2014]. Available at www.marketing.blinker.nl/benchmark/NationaalE-mailOnderzoek2014.pdf (accessed 19 October 2015).
Dib A (2015) Emotional direct response copywriting. Available at www.successwise.com/what-is-emotionaldirect-response-copywriting (accessed Oct. 28, 2015).
DDMA (2015) Dutch Dialogue Marketing Association. Available at: www.nationaleemailbenchmark.nl (accessed 22 October 2015).
Emailmonday (2015) The ultimate mobile email statistics overview. Available at www.emailmonday.com/mobileemail-usage-statistics (accessed 29 October 2015).
Fariborzi E and Zahedifard M (2012) E-mail marketing: Advantages, Disadvantages and Improving techniques. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning: 3:1-5.
Fox School of Business (2012) Dear [insert company name], personalized emails don’t impress customers. Available at: www.fox.temple.edu/posts/2012/06/dear-insert-company-name-personalized-emails-dontimpress-customers (accessed 21 October 2015).
Frankwatching (2014) Nationale email benchmark 2014. Available at: www.frankwatching.com/archive/2014/06/12/nationale-e-mail-benchmark-2014-slimmer-mailen-voor-hogereresponsratios (accessed 21 October 2015).
IDRE Institute for Digital Research and Education (2016) Available at: www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/whatstat/default.htm (accessed 3 February 2016).
Janke R (2014) Effects of mentioning the incentive prize in the email subject line on survey response. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 9: 4-13.
Kent R and Brandal H (2003) Improving email response in a permission marketing context. International Journal of Market Research 45: 489-506.
MarketingSherpa (2015) Email marketing chart: personalized subject lines. Available at: www.marketingsherpa.com/article/chart/personal-subject-lines (accessed 21 October 2015).
Maslen A (2015) Persuasive copywriting: using psychology to engage, influence and sell. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Meeske MD (2005). Copywriting for the Electronic Media: A Practical Guide. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Pallant J (2013) SPSS survival manual 5th ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Pardot (2012) The ABCs of A/B Testing. Available at www.pardot.com/blog/abcs-ab-testing (accessed 2 November 2015).
Porter SR and Whitcomb ME (2005) E-mail subject lines and their effect on web survey viewing and response. Social Science Computer Review 23: 380-387.
Postma OJ and Brokke M (2002) Personalisation in practice: the proven effects of personalisation. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 9: 137-142.
Sappleton N and Lourenço F (2016) Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face interview: the sound of silence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19: 611-622.
Solomon M, Bamossy G, Askegaard S and Hogg M. (2010) Consumer behaviour: a European perspective. 4th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Successwise (2015) Emotional direct response copywriting. Available at: www.successwise.com/what-isemotional-direct-response-copywriting (accessed 28 October 2015).
Trouteaud AR (2004) How you ask counts: a test of internet-related components of response rates to a web-based survey. Social Science Computer Review 22: 385-392.
Dutch subject lines used in A/B test and respective English translations of these subject lines Copywriting Subject line (Dutch) Subject line (English translation) element Personalization [name], voordelig verzorgd het [name], start the new year nieuwe jaar in? profitably cared for? Emotional trigger Een voordelig verzorgd 2016? Op = A profitably cared for 2016? op. Limited stock.
Short Voordelig verzorgd. Profitably cared for. Control group Voordelig verzorgd het nieuwe Start the new year profitably jaar in. cared for. Subject lines, characters, total recipients and open rates Test Characters Total Total open recipients # rate % Control group 37 383,011 24.3 Personal 45 376,966 25.0 Emotional 37 313,854 26.1 Short 18 336,132 26.9 Binomial tests of the ‘personal’ subject line, the ‘emotional’ subject line and the ‘short’ subject line compared to the ‘control group’ subject line Observed Test Exact significance Category N proportion proportion (1-tailed) Open_Pers Group 1 Yes 94,107 .249643 .243000 .000 Open_Emo Group 1 Yes 81,772 .260542 .243000 .000 Open_Short Group 1 Yes 90,560 .269418 .243000 .000
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
