All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Content Analysis of Direct Marketing Emails
Unformatted Document Text:  15 consumer to an outside Website as compared to 32.5 percent did not have them (Chi- square = 30.065, p<.000). Thus, the hypothesis is supported. Hypothesis 1.2 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would use “call for action” phrases to activate consumer’s direct response to the email. We can see that 61.5 percent of those emails did not include such words or phrases to solicit consumer’s direct response as compared to 38.5 percent had them (Chi-square = 12.852, p<.000). Obviously, the majority of the emails were not using “call for action” messaging tactic, and the hypothesis is not supported here. Hypothesis 1.3 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would provide incentives to attract consumers. The results show that 81.6 percent of those emails did not provide a consumer any incentives as compared to 18.4 percent provided at least one kind of incentives (Chi-square = 749.555, p<.000). Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported here. Besides that, what is worth looking at here is lowered price (6.9 percent) and free trial (6.5 percent) were the most used incentives. Hypothesis 2.1 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would clarify their permission previously got from the consumer. Unlike our expectation, 79.5 percent of the emails did not have any statement about their permission of sending those emails to the consumer as they opted in for that compared to 29.5 percent had this kind of statements (Chi-square = 40.984, p<.000). Thus, this hypothesis is also not supported. Hypothesis 2.2 suggested that majority of the commercial emails would provide consumers the option to opt out and be removed from the marketer’s email list. As we expected, 77.6 percent of the emails provided consumers those options compared to 22.4 percent did not (Chi-square = 74.388, p<.000). Therefore, this hypothesis is supported.

Authors: Jin, Yan. and Cameron, Glen.
first   previous   Page 15 of 25   next   last



background image
15
consumer to an outside Website as compared to 32.5 percent did not have them (Chi-
square = 30.065, p<.000). Thus, the hypothesis is supported.
Hypothesis 1.2 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would use
“call for action” phrases to activate consumer’s direct response to the email. We can see
that 61.5 percent of those emails did not include such words or phrases to solicit
consumer’s direct response as compared to 38.5 percent had them (Chi-square = 12.852,
p<.000). Obviously, the majority of the emails were not using “call for action” messaging
tactic, and the hypothesis is not supported
here.
Hypothesis 1.3 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would
provide incentives to attract consumers. The results show that 81.6 percent of those
emails did not provide a consumer any incentives as compared to 18.4 percent provided
at least one kind of incentives (Chi-square = 749.555, p<.000). Therefore, the hypothesis
is not supported here. Besides that, what is worth looking at here is lowered price (6.9
percent) and free trial (6.5 percent) were the most used incentives.
Hypothesis 2.1 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would
clarify their permission previously got from the consumer. Unlike our expectation, 79.5
percent of the emails did not have any statement about their permission of sending those
emails to the consumer as they opted in for that compared to 29.5 percent had this kind of
statements (Chi-square = 40.984, p<.000). Thus, this hypothesis is also not supported.
Hypothesis 2.2 suggested that majority of the commercial emails would provide
consumers the option to opt out and be removed from the marketer’s email list. As we
expected, 77.6 percent of the emails provided consumers those options compared to 22.4
percent did not (Chi-square = 74.388, p<.000). Therefore, this hypothesis is supported.


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.