Q1 Benchmarks Overview: The Responsive Design Effect
14
Q1 Benchmarks Overview: The Responsive Design Effect
-
Upload
yesmail-interactive -
Category
Business
-
view
541 -
download
0
description
Responsive emails, which automatically adapt to screen size, typically command more engagement than status quo emails when viewed on a mobile device. However, many marketers haven’t adapted to consumers’ increased mobile usage. Read Yesmail’s overview of Q1 benchmarks to learn important insights, including: • Variations in email engagement and conversion across devices • How industries compare in terms of opens, clicks, and click-to-open rates • The holiday’s effect on the percentage of active subscribers, number of mobile orders, and more
Transcript of Q1 Benchmarks Overview: The Responsive Design Effect
Q1 Benchmarks
Overview: The Responsive Design Effect
www.yesmail.com 2
Introduction
• Responsive design emails automatically adapt to screen size and, in general, command more engagement than non-responsive emails when viewed on a mobile device.
• While consumers are moving toward mobile, marketers haven’t kept up, inconsistently employing responsive design.
• Hybrid email viewership (viewing on mobile then revisiting on a desktop or vice versa) continues to decline, indicating that consumers are favoring a single device (whether desktop or mobile) to interact with emails.
• Tablets remain the mobile device of choice for shoppers responding to marketing emails, edging out smartphones.
Methodology: Yesmail analyzed more than 5 billion marketing emails sent on behalf of clients in the first quarter of 2014.
www.yesmail.com 3
Responsive Design
• Over half of all emails (51.6%) continue to be opened on a
mobile device.
• Emails using responsive design have a 21% higher CTO than
non-responsive emails.
www.yesmail.com 4
Responsive Design
Despite the benefits, only 1% of marketers send responsive
emails exclusively.
www.yesmail.com 6
Hybrid Viewership
Hybrid viewers, or consumers who open emails on both desktop
and mobile devices, dropped 12% vs. Q4.
www.yesmail.com 7
Hybrid Viewership
Only 7.5% of all consumers now open marketing emails on both
mobile and desktop devices.
www.yesmail.com 9
The Rise of Tablets
Tablet events (the sum of opens and clicks) for emails opened on
mobile devices grew by 4.5% vs. Q4.
www.yesmail.com 10
The Rise of Tablets
The number of tablet orders as a proportion of all mobile orders
grew by 7%. The number of smartphone orders decreased at
almost double the rate (13%).
www.yesmail.com 12
Holiday Hangover
• The holiday season had a large impact on marketers’ activities
and consumer response in Q1.
• The average number of emails received per opener dropped by
17% quarter over quarter as retailers mailed fewer offers after
the holidays.
• The percentage of active subscribers (opened/clicked within 90
days) dropped by 6%, possibly because customers had
completed their holiday shopping.
• The number of mobile orders decreased by 4%, most likely as a
result of the shopping season being over and consumers not
feeling urgency to complete their purchase on their mobile
devices.
www.yesmail.com 13
Q1 Benchmarks Overview Download
To download the full report and read through all the insights,
please visit:
Q1 Benchmark Overview: the Responsive Design Effect
www.yesmail.com 14
About Us
We power intelligent customer interactions. We give you the
insights to recognize and understand your customer to deliver
contextually relevant digital communications – while respecting
their preferences and privacy. We help marketers evolve their
customer relationships through intelligent interactions via
technology, insights, and services in a near real-time multichannel
environment. We help you compete in the age of the customer.
For more information, visit www.yesmail.com.
![Benchmarks - June, 2013 | Benchmarks Onlineit.unt.edu/sites/default/files/benchmarks-06-2013.pdf · Benchmarks - June, 2013 | Benchmarks Online 4/26/16, 8:52:25 AM] Skip to content](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f9d6dd4a6e586755376b37d/benchmarks-june-2013-benchmarks-benchmarks-june-2013-benchmarks-online.jpg)
![arXiv:2005.12873v3 [cs.DC] 7 Jun 2020processing benchmarks [12]. They studied about distributed and parallel benchmarks for graph analyzers, graph database benchmarks, benchmarks for](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/60c4e778df2cd14e603091d9/arxiv200512873v3-csdc-7-jun-2020-processing-benchmarks-12-they-studied-about.jpg)
