It’s not often that one of those hokey affordable healthcare commercials made me smile, but this one did . . . just not for the reasons you might expect.
The commercial showed the response of three different sets of consumers to the product — a recent college graduate, a mid-life couple, and a retired couple. Each asked a set of questions that presented a need that was answered by the product.
At the end of the commercial, the college graduate boasted that he got his quote online. The mid-life couple beamed that they got theirs by calling an 800 number. The retired couple said they got theirs by walking into one of the brick-and-mortar stores.
Well done, I thought. It wasn’t heavy handed, but it was there. There were multiple ways to respond to the offer depending on the needs and inclinations of the different segments of the marketer’s target audience.
This is a lesson we need to be taking to heart.
You may have worked hard to convince a client of the benefits of using personalized URLs to update their contact list or add additional variables, for example, but it’s important to give people another way to respond, as well. Give them a phone number, a tear-off form, a QR code to an online form. You worked hard to convince the client of the benefits of this approach, so you want people to use it, of course, but you don’t want to lose people who are interested in the offer but don’t want to use the personalized URL either — and they’ll be out there.
Not sure it’s worth undermining your efforts to market certain types of campaigns or technologies to your client base? Do a simple A/B test. Send the offer with the personalized URL (or whatever response mechanism you are working with) only. Then send the same offer with multiple response mechanisms. Everything else is the same. Track the response rates for each set and see what happens.
Anyone out there done a similar test? I’d love to hear your experiences.