All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Content Analysis of Direct Marketing Emails
Unformatted Document Text:  16 Hypothesis 3.1 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would use personalized contact ways to approach consumers. As we can see here, first, 49.6 percent of the emails were sent out by using an email address as the name of sender, compared to 18.7 percent used a person’s name, 17.5 percent used a non-name word/phrase/sentence, and 14.2 used a company/an organization’s name. (Chi-square = 80.407, p<.000). Secondly, 67.9 percent of the emails seemed to only send to the email account owner, compared to 32.1 percent sent to more than two other email addresses (Chi-square = 31.480, p<.000). Third, 59.2 percent of the email subjects seemed non-personal, without either mentioning the email receiver’s name or personal tone, compared to 23.3 personal subjects approached the consumer in a personal tone, and 17.6 extremely personal email subjects called the receiver’s name directly in the subject. (Chi-square = 74.873, p<.000). Considering these findings together, those commercial emails seemed not to have well personalized their ways of approaching a consumer. An email address in sender is not eye-catching and can not give consumers any hints or cues about who the sender is; even though most of the emails seem to have been sent to the receiver him/her self, but its uniqueness can not be guaranteed; when whether a marketer knows and uses a consumer’s name and talk to a consumer in a personal tone is concerned, marketers have not done a good job here. Thus, this hypothesis is not supported. Hypothesis 3.2 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would state consumer’s affiliation with the marketers. Sharply contrasting to our expectation, 96.7 percent of the emails did not include any statement reminding consumers of their previous relationship with the markers, compared to the tiny 3.3 percent did so (Chi- square = 215.041, p<.000). Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported.

Authors: Jin, Yan. and Cameron, Glen.
first   previous   Page 16 of 25   next   last



background image
16
Hypothesis 3.1 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would use
personalized contact ways to approach consumers. As we can see here, first, 49.6 percent
of the emails were sent out by using an email address as the name of sender, compared to
18.7 percent used a person’s name, 17.5 percent used a non-name word/phrase/sentence,
and 14.2 used a company/an organization’s name. (Chi-square = 80.407, p<.000).
Secondly, 67.9 percent of the emails seemed to only send to the email account owner,
compared to 32.1 percent sent to more than two other email addresses (Chi-square =
31.480, p<.000). Third, 59.2 percent of the email subjects seemed non-personal, without
either mentioning the email receiver’s name or personal tone, compared to 23.3 personal
subjects approached the consumer in a personal tone, and 17.6 extremely personal email
subjects called the receiver’s name directly in the subject. (Chi-square = 74.873, p<.000).
Considering these findings together, those commercial emails seemed not to have well
personalized their ways of approaching a consumer. An email address in sender is not
eye-catching and can not give consumers any hints or cues about who the sender is; even
though most of the emails seem to have been sent to the receiver him/her self, but its
uniqueness can not be guaranteed; when whether a marketer knows and uses a
consumer’s name and talk to a consumer in a personal tone is concerned, marketers have
not done a good job here. Thus, this hypothesis is not supported.
Hypothesis 3.2 suggested that the majority of the commercial emails would state
consumer’s affiliation with the marketers. Sharply contrasting to our expectation, 96.7
percent of the emails did not include any statement reminding consumers of their
previous relationship with the markers, compared to the tiny 3.3 percent did so (Chi-
square = 215.041, p<.000). Therefore, this hypothesis is not supported.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
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 16 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.