Shock! Outrage! Basic disgust!
All joking aside, the email (one of many from the Obama campaign in the past few days) got me thinking about the use of famous names in address lines of campaign emails. I mean, when it comes right down to it, who does the campaign think they’re fooling? No one actually believes that the emails they’re receiving are from Ted Kennedy/Michelle Obama/Barack Obama, so why go to all the trouble of placing their name in the address line? Why not save it for the subject, and just have the address simply read “Obama for America”?
Or, more importantly, is there a chance, in some roundabout, upside down way, that this kind of marketing strategy actually works?
Fortunately, an ongoing conversation in my other inbox provides some insight into the method behind this madness.
In a recent conversation on the Progressive Exchange listserv, the topic of email attribution and names was given a full examination. To make a long set of emails short, the folks at ProgEx generally agree that using names is generally ok a) in high-profile campaigns and b) when the "sender" is already famous anyway. This combination seems to suggest that familiarity will outweigh any questions of authenticity. However, the folks on the listserv urged caution. One participant pointed to the dangers of email from less well-known or low-profile non-profits getting filed as spam due to its unclear sender status. Another pointed out that such a scheme, especially when used in a "man on the street" style situation, might require valuable subject line space to be used just to clearly communicate the organization's purpose behind the email.
In other words, when it comes to mass emails, most organizations would do well to simply play it safe and include their organization's name in the "From" line of any official communications.
Barack Obama and Ted Kenendy, on the other hand, can play by an entirely different set of rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment