Autoresponders: Getting You More Leads Online
[nonmember]Missed it the first time live? Or just stumbled across this in the members section today.
Well, grab a cup of tea, get a notepad to hand and sit back to listen to an hour of Mark and the team talk about using Autoresponders to get the maximum from them for your business.
Missed it the first time live? Or just stumbled across this in the members section today. Well, grab a cup of tea, get a notepad to hand and sit back to listen to an hour of Mark and the team talk about using Autoresponders to get the maximum from them for your business. (We left the first minute of us burping and chatting whilst waiting for the webinar to start in the interests of getting it up quickly, so when you click play you got nearly two mins before it actually starts)
If you have not used aweber and want to jump in then the web address is http://www.aweber.com/?210628 – That link contains an affiliate code that means we’ll earn a few pennies when you sign up. Doesn’t cost you any more.
UPDATE: Got this email from Will Haseldine last night about html vs. plain text and it does bring up a very interesting point:
“On 22 Nov 2010, at 18:28, William Haseldine wrote:
Just watching the autoresponder webinar – sorry I missed it live.
One thing I wanted to share – or challenge – is the wisdom of sticking with just plain text emails. This is how I set up my autoresponders originally and have also stuck to the principle with broadcast emails.
However when I recently tested a broadcast with HTML – after some complaints people don;t like the look of my plain text emails – open rate went up 5x! I’ve now HTML versions of my autoresponder sequences and – you guessed it – open rate is up 5x.
I take the point about deliverability but I’m not finding this a problem. Bounces aren’t much different (or is this something different) and the open rate tells its own story.
I’m not missing something am I?
It’s all in the testing. I’ve had the opposite results but your Market obviously likes HTML!
Would you like to be a guest on a future webinar about this?
Sent from Mark’s iPhone
The more you teach, the more you learn!
Yes, it was remiss of me to present the plain text email argument as fact – the only fact you need to take on board is that you must always be testing to get better results.
Thanks a lot for bringing this up, Will.
November 23, 2010
No problem. I’ll look into doing some vids on split testing although I’m fairly sure aweber already has videos that are better than I could produce on how to do this – take a look and if not, we’ll knock some up.
Yes, the double opt-in does have issues but I stick by the fact that if someone has taken the effort to do this, they will become a much better customer. We do use single opt-ins on some sites and the response rate to emails is ludicrously low, but each market does react differently and I reiterate the point – testing is the only way to truly find out.
In the case of Infusionsoft, this would be an expensive test for sure, but maybe try some other single-opt in email software and run a split test?
The other thing about aweber I like and may not have emphasised enough in the webinar is deliverability. I met a guy from the US who spent a fortune developing an email platform to compete with Infusionsoft but he forgot the most important thing – getting agreements in place with the likes of gmail, hotmail, aol etc. to have deliverability agreements in place so their clients’ spam complaints wouldn’t bring the whole business down. Aweber has these and is trustworthy in it’s deliverability
November 24, 2010
Thanks for your thoughts Mark.
I agree that the double opt-in definitely results in a more qualified prospect and I am certainly finding that.
And yes, absolutely, the deliverability is great.