This week, I booked a reservation at a Marriott hotel for an upcoming trip to Toronto. In return for my patronage, I received this, an unsolicited email. It read:
You’ll also receive eBreaks ? 20% or more off last-minute weekend travel, promoted nowhere else! See a sample >>
We’ll keep our messages brief, fast and fun. Should you decide to unsubscribe, simply click on the link at the bottom of any email you receive.
Welcome to service above and beyond.?
Couldn??t find the unsubscribe link fast enough. But that??s not where the story ends. Once I clicked on that unsubscribe link, I was greeted with this:
Without even consenting, I was subscribed to four different newsletters.
Why is all this such a turnoff?
1. ??Since you recently supplied your email address…?
Yes, I did supply my email address ?? to get a reservation confirmation number! No one on the phone told me that handing over this valuable information was a punishable offense. I??m paying you to stay in a room, it doesn??t come with automatic access to my inbox.
2. ??Welcome to service above and beyond.?
Ah, sorry, but you??ve already broken this brand promise by giving me something I haven??t asked for. And, make no mistake, this isn??t like offering cookies at your front desk and leaving it to me to decide whether I want one of not. This is more like throwing cookies through the front window of my house because you??re guessing that I may like them. No thanks.
3. ??Or deselect those you do not wish to receive:?
Look at the screen capture. Three boxes are checked, one isn??t. The unchecked box is the newsletter I??m unsubscribing from now. The three checked boxes are newsletters I??m subscribed to but haven??t received yet. I have to uncheck them to unsubscribe to them all. So I was not only subscribed to one newsletter I didn??t want, but four. Wow, this is really ballsy. Stop trying to trick me with negative wording.
4. Please allow 10 business days for processing.
Once I unsubscribed, I was told that it will take 10 days to process my request. It only took two days to get on the list, but 10 to be taken off? So you??re telling me that there??s a chance that I??ll receive other unwanted newsletters in the next 10 days? I??ll keep track, I promise.
So what??s the big lesson here? Ask, don??t assume.
This is an opt-in marketing world now, Mr. Marriott. I was hoping you would have a better understanding of that.
UPDATE: Excellent points are being made in the comments below. Please feel free to join in and add your two cents.
Tags: Give+TakeMarketing, Opt-In, PermissionMarketing, Marriott, Newsletters
May 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“So what??s the big lesson here? Ask, don??t assume.”
Dang! I was way off. I guessed it was to never book at Mariott. No prize for me. :(
May 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
They are so clueless that I’m sure they think they’re right on top of the new media, using it to market with Web 2.0. But you’re right — they broke a basic rule.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Cam: If I started knocking hotels off the list for reasons like this, how many major chains would there be left to stay at? Just kidding, I’ve been making calls already.
David: what’s that old saying, basic rules are made to be broken?
No, you’re both right - this is an awful abuse of gaining this free information. A better idea? When they sent the email with the confirmation number, they should have asked if I was interested in subscribing to their newsletters. Simple, respectful and the right thing to do.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
Devil’s advocate time here guys…..and I know that I am going to get creamed. Here we go….in a crowded market place, with a middle of the road brand and very few opportunities to stand out…the best way is to market directly to your clients. If I had a dollar for everything that I have explored , booked or bought from a store/service that sent me an unsolicited email after making one purchase, I’d be loaded. Look, this is the real world here.Not blogtopia. There is more competition for consumers’ dollars and eyeballs than ever before. Yes you risk pissing off a few idealists, but I would bet $100 that Marriott’s market research shows that this kind of marketing generates more bottom line dollars than asking people to opt in. And here is the news flash: unless they have changed the rules of the game lately, business is still all about making money.
Last point….from where I sit, to arbitrarily cut off a supplier because you don’t like the way they handle their web marketing program AFTER asking to unsubscribe and being ignored is one thing. To do it because you don’t like their ORIGINAL methodologies seems a little like threatening to take your ball and go home if all of your friends don’t play by the rules YOU want(in my opinion).
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Well, I have to admit that when reading your recent post I was a little stunned by how negative the reaction was. Now as you know, Mark, I am not from your “world”, and the odd time I do post a comment here (even though I read every single post), it is to remind you and your community of the basic fact that it all boils down to commercial realities. Especially, as Jamie points out, in a super competitive segment of a struggling and competitive industry. If you cannot somehow monetize a return on your marketing efforts (whatever type of marketing efforts they may be),then it is difficult to justify the efforts. And I also think you would agree that the holy grail for any consumer facing brand is to be able to communicate with your customers directly. So, what does that mean with respect to your Marriot experience and my PERSONAL views on the situation??? Koodos to them for being able to immediately reach out to a customer and offer them a benefit or range of benefits in an attempt to gain loyalty and keep the relaionship going. Although you personally may not feel this to be done in the right voice, this is your PERSONAL view,skewed I would assume by your agenda of promoting a different kind of customer interaction which you obviously have a right to.This however, does not make their methods wrong on their own. I would guess that there is a fair number of folks who see it as a quasi loyalty club, however and appreciate the special offers etc…and how easy it is to opt out if you so desire. Where I think they fail miserably is in the fact that it takes 2 days to get you on the list, but 10 to get off of it, as you pointed out. In a true customer centric environment, especially one in such a competitive landscape, it must be clear that just as consumers should have the opportunity to be spoken to, that dialog must stop just as quickly if they are not interested, otherwise the “eyes glaze over” and you have lost their engagement in the conversation forever…as I suspect is the case with you and Marriot.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
You are absolutely right, the both of you ?? this is my PERSONAL view of the situation. Because, as a consumer ?? no, make that person ?? I’m annoyed and tired of receiving unwanted messages that clog up my inbox. The same was that I find it annoying to see junk mail flying through my mailbox at home (though that probably infuriates me more just due to the wasted paper).
Now, let me attempt to be objective and say that I wanted to be interrupted in this way. The opening line of this particular email is awful.
“Since you recently supplied your email address to Marriott, you??ll now receive advance notice of new hotels…”
How arrogant is that? Since I recently supplied my email address, that means I automatically want this junk? C’mon. If this approach is so customer focussed, why not go with, at minimum, a different opening line, one that isn’t so lazy? For (a rough) example:
“Thank you for choosing to stay at Marriott on your next trip to Toronto. We’re exited to be your host. As our guest, we’d like to send you advance notice of new hotels, services to save you time and money, and hotel specials and packages.”
Then you can get into the rest.
Even this would be a better start. At least.
Take it a step further, though. Now that they have my email address, why not send me an email that asks me subscribe to their newsletters? Even if they asked in the email they sent with my confirmation code, I think they can ask me one more time if I’m interested and then promise not to bug me again if I’m not. This gives the brand more credibility than assuming I want anything from them on my turf.
“Koodos to them for being able to immediately reach out to a customer and offer them a benefit or range of benefits in an attempt to gain loyalty and keep the relaionship going.”
I’m not saying don’t reach out, I absolutely think they should. What I think is that they just should take one more step before they automatically subscribe me to their list. And that step is asking me if I want their newsletters in the first place.
“There is more competition for consumers?? dollars and eyeballs than ever before. Yes you risk pissing off a few idealists, but I would bet $100 that Marriott??s market research shows that this kind of marketing generates more bottom line dollars than asking people to opt in.”
Like I mention above, if Marriott takes that one extra step, they can accomplish two things:
1. No one has to get pissed off, idealists or otherwise.
2. The ROI of talking to people who want to be spoken to will go up.
It’s not about eyeballs anymore, Jamie. If that was the case, TV ad spends would be going up, not down. Personal connections matter. Not just personal connections, but connecting in the right way too.
Marriott hits the target in many ways, I’m sure. In this case, they didn’t.
Of course, this just may be one man pushing his opinion to other blogtopians. But I really don’t think that’s the case here.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Jamie -
That opt-in is a better consumer strategy than opt-out is pretty well documented, so Marriott really doesn’t have an excuse. It is not a few idealists that say this but studies performed by usability specialists that confirm it.
Here’s what they concluded:
When someone must subscribe to an email to get it, and they get what they asked for, they look at the company who sent it in a favorable light. Plus, and most significantly, they know they can trust the company that sent it.
By contrast, when someone is required to opt-out, or worse, when the company uses negative language that is confusing to the user, they end up sending spam to someone who doesn’t appreciate it. As you pointed out, “There is more competition for consumers?? dollars and eyeballs than ever before.” This means they are already being bombarded with stuff they didn’t ask for, and continuing to do more of the same generally isn’t appreciated.
See this analysis for more information, published in 2000: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000820.html
And here’s something I wrote last year on the same subject: http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2007/10/take_my_spam_please.html
In short, I wouldn’t be too quick to bet my money on what Marriott’s market research concluded. In fact, I’ll be they did this because it’s easy, and they didn’t actually perform any actual research before doing this — and certainly they’ve done not comparative studies on overall brand impact between one approach and the other.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Cam,
I respect your viewpoint and haven’t done the research myself so I will go with my first instinct as a coment and hope to be proven wrong.
Firstly, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the response rate is higher from people who ask to receive the information, it is just that I really am not sure that this is the point. The question is really whether there is a net gain or disadvantage when you send this information to people who have already inquired about or bought into your brand but didn’t specifically ask for more infomation and regular updates and promotions. Selling to those who ask to be sold to is like picking only the fruit that falls off of the tree.It is quite a different thing to look for the most fruit-filled (or fruiful) trees in the orchard to maximize your benefit. Personally, I have been targeted by unsolicited newsletters from merchants that I have bought from in the past and always check out the ones that come from suppliers that have shown me good service in the past, be they hotels, merchants or organizations. Maybe I am unique, but I have never been accused of that in the past! Furthermore, I wonder (and you or Mark may be better suited to answer this question than i am) whether an opinion piece published 8 years ago is truly relevant to consumers’ behaviours and preferences in 2008. It seems to me that the web has chaged ALOT since then and consumer acceptance of marketing practices (web based) have evolved so much since then that a whole new term had to be created to differentiate today’s culture from that of a few years ago (”WEB 2.0″).
As for the whole confusing wording and double negatives, I stated right off the bat that I was playing devil’s advocate and knew that I would stimulate some debate. Let me say this…any marketer that practices deceptive tactics should expect consumers to vote with their wallets. It is just that I have less of a problem with marketers targeting existing users before asking them to opt out, then I have with them trying to confuse clientel with the opt-out process. One (targeting repeat consumrs) is good business and textbook marketing, the other is not.
My conclusion in this case: Go ahead and send the emails/newsletters to Mark(or any other existing client) BUT make it simpler for them to opt out if they wish to. In my opinion, Marriott’s error is probably in the execution and not in the policy.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Jamie:
Before you so quickly dismiss the link Cam provided in his last comment as an “opinion piece”, I think you should delve a little deeper into who wrote it.
Jakob Nielsen is one of, if not the foremost, web usability experts in the world. Here’s some background:
http://www.useit.com/jakob/
http://snurl.com/273cy
And to answer your question about “whether an opinion piece published 8 years ago is truly relevant to consumers?? behaviours and preferences in 2008″, I’d say, “Yes, more than ever.”
In fact, if Neilsen saw it back then, you can only bet that it’s more relevant now. And it is. Here’s some more reading for you to look at:
http://snurl.com/273e7
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=832171
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/permission-mark.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/permission.html
Point being, Jamie, that this isn’t just the thinking of a few idealists in blogtopia. Building permission and trust over time is where the real prize is ?? because the approach delivers the ultimate in customer loyalty.
Read the articles and let us know what you think.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“I wonder (and you or Mark may be better suited to answer this question than i am) whether an opinion piece published 8 years ago is truly relevant to consumers?? behaviours and preferences in 2008. It seems to me that the web has chaged ALOT since then and consumer acceptance of marketing practices (web based) have evolved so much since then that a whole new term had to be created to differentiate today??s culture from that of a few years ago (?WEB 2.0?).”
Your instinct is right to question whether an opinion piece, no matter how informed by research it is, written 8 years ago is still relevant today. For that answer, I’ll refer you to his book published in 2006 (Prioritizing Web Usability), which says, essentially, the same thing, except more so (Nielsen in many cases advocates a double opt-in).
The research tells us that people’s attitudes do change, but not to become more accepting of behavior such as Marriott’s, but actually less tolerant. They have more options than ever before on how to spend their time and get what they want online, so they have little reason to waste their time on, as you say, “with a middle of the road brand” that spams them without permission.
The truth is… the more experience people have online, the more ruthless they become in their browsing habits.
It’s a quandary. Not just for Marriott, but every company that wants to make use of the Internet. There are hard costs associated with building and maintaining online services, and companies are still trying to figure out how to do that profitably. You hit the nail on the head, businesses still need to make money. But not all means are created equal.
Some haven’t figured out the right means, even though we have best practices at our disposal, some choose not to believe them. They take the easy route, because it takes more time, thought, and effort to conceive of an effective communication strategy suited for the brand, and even more, it’s difficult to convince someone that they can get something valuable from your communications.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I agree with the principal. You have now given me food for thought. A sensible , fact based argument that gives me some data and hard facts to look at.
Personally, I will look into the argument now that it has been presented in this light, as opposed to an emotional response to a marketing approach that differs from one championed by a certain segment.
As for the nerve that i hit with the term blogtopia, i believe that it was taken out of concept by you Mark (judging by the tone of your comment). My point was that there are ideals that are more theoretical in nature than practical. It was not meant with any vitriol or sarcasm. Sincerely.By all means, keep trying to approach an ideal. Guys like me need the kick in the butt once in a while!
But I will still be reading the stuff that comes into my inbox from people/organizations that i know or trust. And I suspect that i am more the rule than the exception.