I hate e‑mail. I mean, I don’t hate it—I just hate it. Know what I mean? Why is it my job to start every day wading through a sea of junk just to find the ones I actually want? And just when I think I’ve cleaned out the garbage… poof! Daily emails start pouring in from some website I visited once. Why do I get more emails from a store I browsed for five minutes than from people I actually know?

That’s the tension: brands are terrified of unsubscribes but desperate for attention. Customers? They’re just tired.

The Great Inbox Overload

There’s a reason it feels like drowning. According to Omnisend, a global marketing automation platform analyzing billions of messages across industries, 376 billion emails are sent every day in 2024, and by 2027 that number will hit 408 billion. 84.8% of marketing emails make it into inboxes, which means most of what’s clogging your screen isn’t getting stuck in spam filters—it’s landing right where you don’t want it.

And people aren’t handling it well. According to a large‑scale ArXiv behavioral study of 2 million email users, when inbox volume spikes, people reply less, write shorter responses and mentally tune out.

Not everyone gets it wrong, though. Zalando, a Berlin-based e‑commerce giant, doesn’t send a storm of generic promotions. It sends one or two well‑timed, personalized reminders based on what you actually browsed. They’ve figured out what so many brands miss: relevance and restraint can coexist.

So How Much Is Too Much?

Globally, average open rates for well‑maintained lists hover between 30–40% depending on sector. According to Bloomreach, a global e‑commerce and marketing personalization platform analyzing billions of campaigns annually, this range reflects lists that are properly segmented and actively managed.

Unsubscribes spike when brands push past 3–4 emails per week, with 69% of consumers citing “too many emails” as their primary reason for opting out. According to OptinMonster, a leading email conversion and optimization platform, frequency overload is the number‑one driver of unsubscribes across industries.

But there’s a bigger nuance: people tolerate more when they want the content. The New York Times can email multiple daily digests because subscribers expect and value it. When a mattress company tried daily blasts in 2023, their unsubscribe rates nearly doubled in three months. The difference? One delivers time‑sensitive, high‑value information; the other delivers repetitive sales content with little urgency or utility.

And unsubscribes don’t tell the whole story. Plenty of people don’t bother unsubscribing—they just ignore you or let your emails get filtered into the promotions folder graveyard. These quiet disengagements are just as damaging as explicit opt‑outs.

Permission Isn’t Preference

Yes, GDPR, CASL and emerging US privacy laws require explicit opt‑in. But legal permission isn’t the same as actual preference.

Bloom & Wild, a UK‑based online florist, became famous for letting customers opt out of Mother’s Day promotions. According to The Times, this simple change generated 10× more topic‑specific opt‑outs and drove a wave of viral praise without hurting engagement. They earned loyalty by respecting emotional triggers, proving consent is about more than legality.

Contrast that with Carrefour France, which was fined by the CNIL (France’s data protection authority) for sending promotional emails without a clear and accessible unsubscribe option. The case led to widespread customer complaints and reinforced the idea that legal compliance isn’t enough if customers feel cornered or unheard.

Let Customers Choose

Preference centers aren’t optional anymore—they’re survival tools.

Puma lets subscribers pick sports interests, product categories and email frequency. Travelodge offers a “snooze” option for 1–6 months instead of forcing an unsubscribe. Blacks, a UK outdoor retailer, collects gift recipient details and favorite brands to make promotions feel relevant.

Best practice goes beyond a simple unsubscribe or opt‑out. Give customers meaningful control: allow them to set cadence (daily, weekly, monthly), choose the type of content they receive (promotions, product drops, editorial content, transactional updates), select preferred channels (email, SMS, app notifications), and even pause communications for a set period without unsubscribing.

Each of these real-world strategies improved engagement and reduced churn by empowering subscribers to tailor their own experience.

It’s Quality, Not Quantity

This is a big one: relevance trumps cadence.

According to RedEye, which documented the case in a major email optimization study, CareerBuilder cut sends by 72% yet saw conversions rise 50% by focusing only on actively engaged recipients. The New York Times uses segmented, interest‑driven newsletters (from cooking to politics to culture), delivering multiple daily emails without triggering fatigue because each one feels relevant to its audience. Netflix dynamically adjusts frequency based on behavior—ignore three emails, and they slow down. Spotify tailors its “Release Radar” campaigns by listening history, turning emails into something like an event.

Best Practices: One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Getting cadence right isn’t just about how often you hit “send.” It’s about whether your frequency drives meaningful engagement and revenue—and that varies by industry, price point and customer expectations.

Retail / E‑Commerce: 2–4 emails per week for active buyers, 1–2 for everyone else. Zalando’s hyper‑personalized sale alerts are a benchmark. Target open rates above 25%, click‑through above 3%, and revenue per email over $0.10, a realistic benchmark for mass‑market retailers with optimized segmentation, according to Omnisend. For premium or luxury retail, revenue per email is often significantly higher, reflecting higher price points and lower send volumes—making even modest engagement levels highly profitable.

Hospitality & Travel: 1–2 per week, ramping up near bookings. Emirates uses trip countdowns and destination guides that add value. Aim for open rates above 30%, booking conversions over 2% and dwell time over one minute.

Media & Publishing: Daily—or multiple per day if warranted. Financial Times lets readers customize alerts, cutting fatigue. Open rates above 35% and click‑through above 8% are healthy; revenue here often comes indirectly via subscriptions or ads.

NGOs & Nonprofits: 1–2 per month, with bursts during campaigns. UNICEF lets donors pick update frequency, reducing unsubscribes by 28% and boosting recurring gifts. Aim for open rates above 28% and donation conversion around 1–2%.

B2B SaaS / Tech: 1–3 per month, plus onboarding and product triggers. Slack differentiates content for admins vs. end‑users. Watch open rates above 30%, plus product‑usage and onboarding completion as downstream KPIs.Luxury Brands: 1–2 per month. LVMH sends curated, event‑driven previews instead of weekly sales pushes. Target open rates above 40%, click‑to‑open above 15%, and nearly zero tolerance for unsubscribe spikes. A single conversion—a $5,000 handbag, say—can make low‑frequency campaigns wildly profitable

The Framework for Getting It Right

1. Ask: Use preference centers to give people control over content and frequency.
2. Segment & Test: Track unsubscribes, opens and revenue by cadence.
3. Automate Cadence: Adjust dynamically based on engagement.
4. Make It Worth Opening: Every email should feel curated, not templated.
5. Respect Regional Norms: Cadence tolerance varies by region.
6. Track Real Engagement: Unsubscribes aren’t the only signal. Watch open rates, click‑throughs, post‑click behavior, scroll depth, dwell time and whether emails are being filtered or ignored.

The Bottom Line

Your inbox isn’t a hostage situation. Yet some brands behave like it is. If you’re holding customers captive with irrelevant, relentless messaging, they won’t just unsubscribe—they’ll ghost you.

Ask what they want. Test what they’ll tolerate. And only hit send when it’s worth their attention. If your emails are good, they’ll forgive you for showing up often. If they’re not… no frequency strategy will save you.

Sources:

• Omnisend: Global Email Marketing Statistics 2024
• The CMO: Global Email Deliverability Benchmarks 2023
• ArXiv: Email Overload Behavioral Study 2024
• Mailchimp: Email Marketing Benchmarks 2023
• Campaign Monitor: Email Frequency and Engagement Study 2023
• OptinMonster: Why Consumers Unsubscribe 2024
• The Times: Bloom & Wild Case Study 2024
• CNIL: GDPR Enforcement Actions 2023
• RedEye: CareerBuilder and Email Optimization Case Study 2024

I take interpersonal communications seriously. I value the impact a few well-chosen, heartfelt words can have on other human beings. I religiously send thank you messages to my friends for their generosity and hospitality. I still own personalized stationary, for Pete’s sake. Though I admit, most of my “notes” these days are of the direct messaging vs pen to paper variety. And I treasure when my people acknowledge me in the same way.

By and large, our connected culture…via social media, keeps us informed of all the successes and sorrows of friends and family, prompting good behavior with constant reminders, alerts and automated encouragements to spur frequent engagement. Forgetting someone’s birthday or anniversary or any other milestone is all but impossible with all the beep beeps and ding dongs chimed out by all our devices. And, of course, we have more ways than ever to communicate our sentiments.

But are we automating away our humanity? In this technologically saturated era, we find ourselves at a crossroads where convenience often masquerades as connection, subtly eroding the genuine fabric of human interaction. As artificial intelligence weaves itself into the very essence of our daily communications, we must consider: are we nurturing an intimacy that is anything but artificial?

There was a time when crafting a message to someone special involved more than just the click of a button. It required thought, effort and a personal touch. For instance, the journey to pick out the perfect greeting card and the contemplative moments spent writing heartfelt words are becoming relics of a bygone era—often replaced by the cold efficiency of AI scripts that mimic warmth and affection.

Our reliance on technology for communication has brought undeniable benefits—streamlined workflows, optimized schedules, and simplified interactions, yes. But as we delegate more of our personal exchanges to the realm of algorithms and automated systems, we must ask ourselves what intangible qualities we are sacrificing at the altar of technology.

The impact of discovering that a thoughtful note or a kind gesture was the product of an algorithm can be jarring. If you receive a touching note from a dear friend, only to discover it was generated and delivered by AI without even the briefest of human stewardship, how would you react? It is akin to finding out that a gift thoughtfully chosen by a significant other was actually selected by their assistant. This type of revelation not only questions the sincerity of the gesture but also diminishes the emotional value attributed to it.

Of course, whether you should feel offended when you receive a heartfelt message from AI instead of a real person really depends on your personal expectations and the context of the message. If the message is for something routine or informational, using AI might be okay. However, for more personal or emotional messages, like birthday wishes or condolences, you might expect a real person to write these, and it’s understandable to feel upset if they use AI instead.

But how will we know? Once there is no easy way to discern the difference between communications from a real person versus an AI, will human communications lose its value altogether? I fear that we simply won’t bother to craft sentimental messages ever again.

I still believe that it’s worth the effort to stand out and show that our messages are genuinely thoughtful. I try to push AI aside and mention specific memories, jokes or details in my missives that clearly come from my shared experiences with the recipient. Though I used to abhor voice messages, I now embrace them as one obvious way to convey that “this is really me!” And, when an occasion arises, I embrace the handwritten note. Of course, I suppose, and this is truly radical thinking, we could just pick up the phone and speak with one another!

AI’s Impact on authentic marketing communications.
AI-driven interactions can also feel impersonal in a commercial setting (you knew I would somehow get back to marketing in end, right?), and how consumers react largely depends on the context and their expectations. In business environments, many customers accept or even prefer AI interactions for efficiency in straightforward transactions or quick information retrieval. However, when it comes to more complex or sensitive issues, such as resolving complaints or discussing services, people often value and seek out human interaction for its empathy and ability to handle nuanced problems. At least for now.

But until AI bots can deliver the same satisfactory interactions as humans, businesses need to balance the use of AI by understanding where its efficiency benefits the customer experience and where human touch is crucial. Maintaining this balance is key to ensuring that AI tools enhance rather than detract from customer satisfaction.

As we grapple with the implications of AI in all our communications, the importance of transparency becomes clear. By openly acknowledging the role of AI in our interactions, we can begin to navigate the complexities of this new landscape without losing sight of the need for genuine human connection.

Our challenge looking forward will be to harness the capabilities of AI without compromising the sincerity of our business and personal relationships. Replacing real person interaction with technology demands a careful balance—embracing the benefits of innovation while guarding against the erosion of the authentic human connections that sustain us.

Well, we know what they meant to say. But they didn’t quite manage it. They also made the decision not to add an image that might further clarify the offer and suggest what brands might be included.  Not their best decision.

We see “Buy 1, Get 2” quite a lot. That would mean if you buy one, you’ll get an extra one for free. So maybe they really meant to write: “Buy 2, Get 3”, if the offer is to pay for two items and get the third for free.  Unless, they really are suggesting that we should pay for two items and only get one. That seems unlikely.  Maybe they are trying to say that if you buy two items you can get one more, but different item, for free.  But then, why not write something like: “Buy 2 and get a Free Gift”?  Perhaps something more sinister is afoot?  The lack of clarity and imagery do emit a faint whiff of “bait and switch”.  I guess I could have stopped by the shop to ask. But instead I decided to just give them the benefit of the doubt and rant about it here.  I mean, if you are a reputable store and take the time to print a sign, maybe take a minute and learn how to craft your message. Just say’n. 

I have so many questions!  Who created this offer? Was it a marketing department or an agency?  Or was it the store manager? Or an unpaid intern?  Does this unpaid intern speak English?  And who approved this sign?  Did they realize the mistake and then hope no one noticed?  Has anyone noticed?  Am I the only one? 

I have no doubt that most pedestrians passing by this store won’t give this sign a second glance.  Some will absorb the meaning of the vague offer and simply expect to get three items by paying for two.  And far fewer still will venture inside, lured by the most powerful offer in marketing: FREE.

But when I see this sign, the real message is obvious. Hire a marketing professional.

I know we are in the business of making stylish websites and marketing materials. But let’s face the facts. According to the United Nations, the number of persons aged 60 or above is expected to more than double by 2050 and to more than triple by 2100, rising from 962 million globally in 2017 to 2.1 billion in 2050 and 3.1 billion in 2100. That’s about one third of the global population and a substantial percentage of all individuals with disposable income worldwide. 

As people age, they become more dependent on reading glasses and/or opt for larger font sizes. Also, some colors may appear faded to persons with vision challenges, which reduces contrast and readability. Therefore, text and button sizes should be kept large and color contrast should be increased in websites and apps that cater to older adults. Basically, all essential information that’s meant to be read or clicked should be scaled up. Fonts should not be smaller than 12px and made larger wherever practical. Furthermore, sans serif typefaces are generally preferred for readability online. Ideally, it should also be easy for users to increase font sizes as necessary. But I wouldn’t count on that technical capability when it comes to appealing to older or otherwise vision-challenged consumers. It’s also worth pointing out that icons should be labeled for older adults who may be less familiar with even the most common symbols. 

Unfortunately, all this may mean that the designer must compromise esthetic for usability, or function over form — a compromise that will be more readily apparent and welcome among older marketing decision-makers. 

We all know that marketing is a business that celebrates youth. But when it comes to approving layouts and interfaces for people with less than perfect vision, perhaps someone longer in the tooth should give it the final thumbs up. 

I have a love/hate relationship with taglines.

On the one hand, the summing up of a brand’s proposition and/or personality in one elegant little phrase can make for a compelling marketing tool. Some famous companies have used taglines to completely define themselves in the marketplace. Nike’s “Just do it” or Apple’s “Think different” spring to mind. Finding just that right twist of phrase can be magic for a brand. That’s the love side of my love/hate equation.

On the hate side…most taglines are created by Marketing Zombies and do absolutely nothing for their brand. In fact, I would say that more than a few “lines” have actually hurt the brand to which they have been “tagged”. I’m not going to name names. But you know the ones I’m talking about. The taglines that make incredible, outsized claims, are completely self-serving, absurdly boastful or use hackneyed expressions – usually featuring words like “best”, “we” or “quality”.

So what should a marketer do? Glad you asked.

First of all, let’s make a distinction between a tagline and a slogan. A tagline is a brand’s motto or raison d’ être. It should summarize the qualities for which a brand stands and make the brand more memorable in the mind of the consumer. In most cases it should live as long as the brand. A slogan is a payoff to an ad or marketing campaign. Sometimes slogans become taglines and sometimes taglines are used as slogans. This is a bit of a game of semantics, but we marketers love our games.

Next, we should ask ourselves if we even need a tagline? Maybe the name of our brand says it all. Many brand names established since the advent of the Internet are far more descriptive than older brick & mortar brands. Brands like “Travelocity” kind of say it all in my opinion. A bit of sloganeering from time to time may be useful to steward and shape the brand through its lifespan, but the brand name itself is pretty powerful all on its own.

If the decision is made to develop a tagline, I think there are three cardinal rules the company and its agency should follow. They seem pretty obvious to me and, I’m sure, to you. But look around. Not everyone knows this stuff.

1. Make your tagline credible. Even if you are the fastest, lightest, smallest or biggest today, will you always be? Make sure your tagline is believable, will endure as long as your brand and is not wildly boastful. No one likes a braggart. Pro Tip: Leave out the word: “best”.

2. Make your tagline endearing. Though all taglines are self-serving, they need not be self-centered. Focus on the consumer, the brand promise and what this will do for him or her. It’s not all about you. Pro Tip: Leave out the word: “we”.

3. Make your tagline original. This, of course, is the most challenging bit. But given the choice between appending a cliché to my brand of foregoing a tagline, I would choose au natural. Pro Tip: At the very least…leave out the word: “quality”.