Getting a foot in the electronic door: understanding why people read or delete electronic mail

For researchers, a key issue in developing electronic mail as a survey method is to understand what factors are at play as a potential respondent chooses to open or delete a mail message. This research investigated the process by which individuals make decisions about opening and reading versus deleting electronic mail and also assessed attitudes towards electronic mail surveys. The sample received an electronic mail message followed by a telephone interview. Results indicated that individuals delete mail when the subject line does not interest them or when they do not recognize the name of the individual sending the email. Those interviewed reacted favorably to electronic mail surveys for scientific research despite issues of anonymity. However, respondents overwhelmingly described a dislike for commercially based electronic mail surveys. Tracy L. Tuten Foot in the Electronic Door 5 Getting a foot in the electronic door: Understanding why people read or delete electronic mail Surveys delivered via electronic mail are becoming increasingly popular as companies and researchers realize the economic reasons for utilizing such methods. Electronic mail surveys offer many benefits. Electronic mail is 1) easy to send; 2) easy to reply; 3) low in cost compared to mail or phone or in person; 4) fast responses can begin immediately; and 5) it eliminates time zone hassles for individuals in different geographic areas (Parker, 1992; Mehta and Sivada, 1995; Batinic, 1997). While the benefits are attractive, electronic mail surveys may not elicit the same level of response rates as other survey methods. Parker (1992: 54) summarized this problem by saying: ‘email subscribers may become callused pressers of the delete key, who pitch your questionnaire, unread, into the electronic world’s equivalent of the circular file.’ Thus, for researchers, a key issue in developing electronic mail as a survey method is to understand what factors are at play as a potential respondent chooses to open or delete a mail message. In other words, if a potential respondent does not even open the mail, such traditional factors as incentives (Church, 1993; James and Bolstein, 1992), appeals (Houston and Nevin, 1977), and official sponsorship (Fox, Crask, and Kim, 1988; Dillman, 1978: 16) are irrelevant. This research investigates the process by which individuals make decisions about opening and reading versus deleting electronic mail and also assesses attitudes towards electronic mail surveys. A discussion of relevant literature, methods, and preliminary results follows. Problem Statement Unfortunately, visual cues like stationery quality and color and style of font are not (yet?) available in the electronic mailbox. An electronic mail message as seen in one’s ‘mailbox’ has no envelope. There is no stationery to indicate the contents of the letter, no control over the font used, no opportunity to show a personalized salutation at this point in the process. In fact, the amount of information available to the potential respondent is quite limited: typically only a ‘From’ line and a ‘Subject’ line are 1 While electronic mail surveys are less expensive for the researcher, their organization incurs expenses associated with the development of the system, system maintenance, and the amount of usage. Tracy L. Tuten Foot in the Electronic Door 6 available to provide information to the reader. Thus, how do potential respondents go about deciding which messages to open and which to delete immediately? Importance of Study The purpose of such a study is to inform researchers using electronic mail as a data collection method of potential factors that may influence whether a potential respondent will even open and read an electronic request to participate in a survey. Electronic data collection offers many advantages to the researcher including cost savings (no need for stamps, stationery, long-distance telephone calls), speed of delivery, and ease of use (Parker, 1992; Mehta and Sivada, 1995). Understanding how to encourage a potential respondent to read a message is a critical issue in developing acceptable response rates using electronic surveys. Related Literature Why do individuals open their mail, electronic or otherwise? Why do people answer the phone? Thus far, response rates of electronic mail surveys have been acceptable compared to response rates for mail and telephone surveys (Parker, 1992; Anderson and Gansneder, 1995). Yet, like the effects of junk mail on traditional response rates, and telemarketers on telephone survey response rates, electronic junk mail and ‘spammed’ messages threaten the viability of electronic mail as a survey method. To better understand ways of ‘getting our foot in the door,’ relevant literature with regard to mail and phone surveys as well as direct mail marketing is briefly reviewed. Traditional mail Research on mail surveys (e.g., Dillman, 1978; DeLeeuw and Hox, 1988) has emphasized the importance of visual factors such as personalization (e.g., using the respondent’s name on the envelope and cover letter), and the color and quality of stationery in encouraging potential respondents to open mail. For example, Dillman, Singer, Clark, and Treat, (1996) recently found that a notice on the envelope emphasizing a legal mandate to answer a census survey increased response significantly. Because official sponsorship increases response rates, one might also infer that the identification of an official sponsorship on the envelope may increase the chance of a mail piece being opened. Tracy L. Tuten Foot in the Electronic Door 7 Direct Mail findings James and Hairong (1993) investigated why consumers open direct mail. They surveyed consumers and direct marketing practitioners to assess the direct mail envelope characteristics that are perceived as critical in getting an envelope opened. Handwritten envelopes and envelopes that looked like bills were typically opened. They concluded that personalization (handwritten envelope offers a cue of personally knowing the sender) and importance (not opening a bill had important negative consequences) were critical factors. Others have also encouraged the use of high quality stationery as a way of differentiating mail from ‘junk’ mail. Telephone Surveys Frey (1976) wrote that telephone usage is guided by several norms of behavior. The ringing phone creates tension to the point of feeling a compulsion to answer the ring. The ring calls for completion, closure, and response. Similar to answering a doorbell or knock, Ball (1968) suggested that we have been conditioned to answer the telephone. For a telephone researcher, this once meant that if a telephone rings in the home of a potential respondent, it would probably be answered. However, this compulsion to answer also guaranteed success for telephone solicitors. Because this compulsion attracted a growing number of telephone solicitations, ultimately the compulsion to answer the phone may have also contributed to the decrease in the response rates for telephone surveys. Tuckel and O’Neill (1995) noted that over the last 15 years, response rates to phone surveys have decreased dramatically. Thus, while mailed pieces have emphasized YLVXDO cues (e.g., personalization, sponsorship identified, paper color) to encourage potential respondents to open the mail, and telephones are answered because of the DXGLWRU\ cue, electronic mail, at least at this time, lends itself to neither. Factors affecting Electronic mail reading While no known literature exists to explain specifically the decision processes behind reading electronic mail, some clues do exist about what factors may influence whether an individual chooses to read rather than delete an electronic message. Some potential factors include recognition of the name in the ‘From’ line, personal interest in Tracy L. Tuten Foot in the Electronic Door 8 the ‘subject’ line, amount of mail received on a particular day, and previous experiences opening mail and with the use of electronic mail in general. Recognition of Name in ‘From’ line While the effect of name recognition in electronic mail communication has yet to be investigated, both the literature on brand names and results reported by the GVU’s web survey (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu) infer a relationship. Forty-seven percent of respondents to GVU’s web survey indicated that they immediately delete ‘spammed’ messages. A spammed message means that a message has been sent to a mass audience. In other words, the message was not sent directly to and for that particular respondent and was, thus, immediately deleted. A spammed message can be identified by its lack of personalization (Batinic, 1997). Further, a large base of literature on the value of branding (e.g., Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel, 1997) suggests that individuals may feel greater trust, reliability, and be more likely to purchase products that carry a brand name they are familiar with. In addition, Maddox, Mehta and Daubek (1997) found that web users feel a brand name helps them to remember the URL of a website they wish to visit. Extending this phenomenon to electronic communication, a similar relationship may exist with regard to opening one’s mail: recognizing a name, in leu of other information, may increase the likelihood of opening electronic mail. Content of ‘Subject’ line Personal interest in the topic identified in the ‘subject’ line. Past studies on response rates to mail and telephone surveys have reported that topic interest significantly increases response rate (Martin, 1994; Heberlein and Baumgartner, 1978). Similarly, individuals seek out websites because of personal interest in a topic or product (Maddox, et al., 1997). Individuals are more likely to respond to surveys investigating a topic they are interested in and have definitive opinions about, and less likely to respond to surveys investigating topics of no interest to them. A similar effect may be present when reading a ‘s