Comments on: Email Newsletters are More Emotionally Engaging than Websites: Study

By: How to Sell RSS (Or Where the Feed Fanboys Drop the Ball) | Copyblogger

How to Sell RSS (Or Where the Feed Fanboys Drop the Ball) | Copyblogger — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:17:13 +0000

[...] Recently released studies re-affirm that people like getting content by email, and don’t get why they should switch to RSS. Of course when you ask the question “Do you want to aggregate RSS feeds?” and get a negative response, it’s as if you had asked “Do you want to access Web pages with HTTP?” in 1995 (good one, Scott!). [...]

By: Secret Weapon Notes: Volume 8 at Secret Weapon Labs

Secret Weapon Notes: Volume 8 at Secret Weapon Labs — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:56:01 +0000

[...] On the note of FileMaker, email, and small business communication – which I brushed upon last week – Darren Rowse of ProBlogger fame is providing some more insight and research with mention of a study on how email newsletters are more emotionally engaging than websites. Some more reading here, here, and here. [...]

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:21:38 +0000

Sorry, the second and third last paragraphs should have read:

This is so big that I’ve had to change my headline size a lot to keep the email subscription box (directly below the RSS link) above the fold (advice which I got from this site). Worth it, to make sure people know what I am talking about.

Not sure about the ‘engagement’ issue – I think that people will read things they find interesting.

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:24:16 +0000

82% of people had no idea what RSS means? I have just changed my RSS feed so that it now reads: # Use this RSS feed to send new stories on Lets Take Over to a feed reader like bloglines.com its a simple way to get stories from lots of sites sent to the one place, instead of visiting lots of websites. [The # represents the 'orange loudspeaker' RSS logo.] no matter what the format. Perhaps too many websites are cluttered with 'fruit This is so big that I've had to change my headline size a lot to keep the email subscription box (directly below the RSS link) above the fold (advice which I got from this site). Worth it, to make sure people know what I am talking about. Not sure about the 'engagement' issue - I think that people will read things they find interesting, salad' and the starkness of the email inbox appeals to people? But that would be bad design, as oppposed to a fundamental feature of web browsing that will always be true. I don't have the resources to check, so make sure people can browse, RSS or be emailed my site - and agree with this site that RSS and email subscription info belongs above the fold, no matter what.

By: Beta Alfa 2.0 » Nyheter via mejl väcker mer och starkare känslor än de som ges via webbsidan

Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:11:46 +0000

[...] ProBlogger: Email Newsletters are More Emotionally Engaging than Websites [...]

By: risingsunofnihon

risingsunofnihon — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:34:55 +0000

I have to agree with the commenters above who said that newsletters probably aren’t as effective as the study makes them out to be. I find that most e-subscriptions become intrusive and annoying after a while — particularly those that are from commercial sites that are driven by the need for sales.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:55:35 +0000

Thanks for pointing this study, and the NeilsenNorman group, out Darren. The findings certainly make a lot of sense, but I wonder how quickly the ground will shift as RSS technology becomes mainstream. Most people don’t have any idea what feeds are now, but I suspect they will once IE7 diffuses and blogs are more frequently cited in print media. The RSS logo provides a visual link between the feed link and the browser (IE displays the logo in the menu bar), and the more people see references to it, the more they’ll be inclined to look at what it is (presuming, of course, people use the RSS logo in their blogs). Changing link descriptions from something like ‘RSS feed’ to ‘News feed’ still makes sense (I’m all for making things easier to understand), but I would not ditch the feed option because of low use at this point in time.

On a different note… its ironic that the NeilsenNorman group don’t provide an easy mechanism for keeping up to date with their research on their website. I hunted for a link to an email newsletter but can’t seem to find one!

By: Shirazi

Shirazi — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:41:49 +0000

It seems difficult to agree with the findings of the study. Many people saubscribe allright but then soon lose interests in the newsletters and thay often land up in spam section.

By: El Hakeem

El Hakeem — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:42:44 +0000

I think this would depend on what kind of newsletter we’re speaking of. Many newsletters today are simply intrusive sales pitches, offering little of value beyond overt marketing pitches.

For newsletters that actually deliver valuable content, this would probably hold true as readers will actually be delighted to see them show up in their inboxes. It’s the difference between opening your front door to find a pushy salesman, and finding a welcome invitee.

http://www.amusis.com

By: Brian Clark

Brian Clark — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:37:18 +0000

It’s the *subscription* that makes the difference, not really the medium that information is delivered in. Whether email, feed or on the actual site, the more of an ongoing relationship there is with the content and the author, the more value the reader places on the content and the author.

That’s why I put so much emphasis on obtaining — and keeping — subscribers, over such other metrics such as page views, unique visitors, etc. This study proves that point, but once again it’s interesting to note that how a study question is asked can result in conclusions that don’t really catch the *real* point.

By: Dave Starr

Dave Starr — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:41:18 +0000

A good study, that. I notice, using my personal habits with Problogger, that although I enjoy reading the blog mostly in “real time” (I use a Blogger subscription so most days I read almost all new posts as the happen) I still fin d significant value in the newsletter. Review of posts I may have missed, Darren’s view of something which may have been refined since the post first went out, etc. My own view is a simple newsletter, kept personal, is well worth it.

The RSS comment (and I could add all sorts of blogging geek-speak, especially from the Technorati brigade)… unless your blog is definitely about blogs and bloggers, knock it off. I see blogs about home business, personal improvement, child care and many other sorts of diverse subject that slip into RSS, de.licio.us (or whatever stupid way they write their URL). Your readers aren’t bloggers! They don’t know an RSS from a Technorati tag and they shouldn’t be asked to. RSS is an acronym that describes a technical service, “Daily Feed” is one possible English description for the results of that service.

Some good thoughts and meat for good discussion here