Over on LinkedIn, where I cross-post many of the blog posts you see on this site, that particular post sparked a number of comments — many from staunch defenders of the “e-newsletter.”  Others accused me of playing a game of semantics by too narrowly defining what constitutes an “e-newsletter.”

Let’s get something straight:  The word “e-newsletter” is short for “email newsletter”.  It is a compendium of news.  It is not the same thing as an direct email piece.  (Just as a newsletter or brochure is not the same as a letter to a client, a friend, etc.)

As I’ve said before, an “e-newsletter” may have its place:  namely to a core audience of people who specifically have opted-in to receive an e-newsletter from your organization.

E-newsletters are not effective at branding your organization. They are not effective at building audience.  They are not effective at building your organization’s narrative.

Let’s look at some concrete examples.

E-Newsletters:

• Here is a recent edition of a weekly e-newsletter I received from Chicago Alderman Bob Fioretti.  I zoomed out so you can get an idea of the enormous length of this piece.  In addition to being way too long, it contains poor-quality photos of the alderman, with news that he may want you to see … but that may not necessarily be relevant to your everyday life.  It’s also not an opt-in mailer.  Bottom line:  impersonal, too long, too wordy, poorly designed, no clear call to action or description of the alderman’s vision for the ward.

• Here is an example of the Republican National Committee’s “Weekly Trunk” e-newsletter.  A new product this year, the “Weekly Trunk” is a waste of resources and a drain on the inboxes of Republicans across the country.  As you can see, it is another long, impersonal piece that simply provides links to random, out-of-date news stories.  No call-to-action.  Further, I receive this every week even though I never specifically opted in for an e-newsletter.

Quality Direct Emails

• One reason Barack Obama was so successful online was the design and content of his emails.  Here is a recent example of one of those pieces.  As you can see, it is personal, with a direct appeal, a clear message and call-to-action.  It’s not chock-full of graphics.  This is a quality direct email piece.  And, unlike the e-newsletter examples provided above, these emails aren’t sent on a set, weekly schedule — they’re sent whenever the campaign organization has something important to say.  It could be a few times a week … it could be a few times a month.  But they make the pieces relevant.

• Here is an example of another direct email piece — this one from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (full disclosure:  the Chamber is a client and this email was written by me).  Like the Obama email, this is a personalized, direct appeal with a clear call to action.  Light on graphics and relevant.  Yes, the Chamber does have an e-newlsetter — but only for a small segment of people who specifically have opted in to receive it.

So, now that I have provided specific examples of the “good” and the “bad” — you can see firsthand the difference between an “e-newsletter” and an effective email.  While I only provided two examples of the “bad” — they are, unfortunately, typical of what many, many organizations are producing.

The difference between the “good” and the “bad” is vital when you’re filling people’s inbox with content that directly reflects on your organization’s mission and brand.

Because, unless your “e-newsletter” is going to a core group of supporters who have specifically opted-in to receive it — you’re doing yourself a disservice.

Quick tip:  Emails should be short, with minimal graphics, a clear call to action, and timely, compelling content that is relevant to the lives of your recipients.

Let’s look at the ’08 Presidential campaign for a simple, high-profile case study.  For most of the campaign, John McCain sent out a Friday afternoon “e-newsletter” compendium.  The newsletter (heavy on graphics) contained key speeches or announcements for the week, the candidate’s schedule and other news the campaign thought was important.

Obama?  They focused on deploying short, timely action alerts with clear calls to action — whether it’s watching a video, emailing a friend, signing a petition or, yes, making a contribution.  Every Obama that hit the email inbox had a clear goal.  Minimal graphics (if any).  No wasted news compendiums from the week.  That’s what Web sites are for …

Needless to say, the McCain campaign killed their e-newsletters during the summer or fall of 2008.  They realized it was worthless.  It was a waste of resources and took up bandwidth that could be better spent on timely action emails.

A high profile case study, yes.  But a good example of why you your organization should give your e-newsletters a quick death.  Save your email recipients the energy used in hitting the delete button.

Concise.  Short.  Minimal graphics.  Clear call-to-action.