Art and Design History of Art Teaching

What Are Good Email Click Through Rates

What Are Good Email Click Through Rates Recently, we shared what we learned through A/B testing our email subject lines over the course of several months. We showed what worked and what didnt, and what kinds of subject lines were the most likely to get opened. A reader then suggested that we provide similar data, but not just on subject lines. What were our readers doing once they opened the email? Were they clicking to articles? We thought this was a great question, and decided to look at the same set of data, but this time focus on what readers did once they opened the email. What Our Email Looks Like Our weekly Content Marketing Update email has no complete posts in it, meaning that if a reader wants to read what weve shared in the the email, they must click on something. We share the post title, a small graphic, and a summary of the post. We have a update or featured item with a gray background, and then below that, links to at least three interesting blog posts for the week. This is what our email looks like. We send it out every week, on Tuesday. Our Email Click-Through Rates Though we didnt A/B test our emails based on the click activity that happens once an email is opened, there are still a few things we can learn about what people do once they open an email. In the table below, we use the same emails from our earlier post. You can see the date of the email, and the subject line of the email. We are only showing the subject line that won the A/B test. Open Rate: The percentage of total recipients that opened the email. Click Rate: The percentage of those who opened and then clicked at least once. Click / Person: How many clicks each person made, on average. Subj. Post: Whether the most-clicked link matched the A/B winning subject line of the post. So, what did we learn?Date Subject Open Rate Click Rate Click / Person Subj. Match JUNE 3 17 Apps To Help You Make Ebooks 21 27 1.87 Y 10 A No-Fail Method For Writing Blog Posts 22 29 1.98 Y 17 The Total Guide To Sharing Content On Social Media 20 22 2.07 N 24 Using Game Theory As A Content Marketing Tactic 19 25 2.19 N JULY 1 The Case For (And Against) Using Link Shorteners 21 25 1.78 Y 8 3 Tricks To Get People To Remember Your Content 20 28 1.94 Y 15 The 1 Big Reason You Should Self-Host Your Blog 20 22 1.88 Y 22 5 Plugins That Get You More Leads 21 31 1.68 Y 29 Why Your Project May Be Doomed Before Its Launched 19 21 1.78 N AUGUST 5 Why Content Marketing Tips Should Not Be Trusted 19 21 1.69 N 12 Know Your Audience? Google Just Made It Even Easier 20 25 2.03 Y 19 90s Nostalgia Can Rock Your Content Marketing 19 23 2.03 NWhat is considered to be a good click rate? Lets look at some standard benchmarks to get a better idea at what email click rates are, based on the industry. MailChimp has compiled the data from their users, breaking it up by industry. According to MailChimp, for marketing and advertising: 18.81% of emails get opened. 2.44% of emails get clicked. According to MailChimp, for software and web app emails: 21.86% of emails get opened. 3.26% of emails get clicked. MailerMailer did a similar study of their own data, and found that marketing and PR emails generally had about a 15% click-to-open rate. Constant Contacts numbers hover around the same level, too. And, according to the 2012 Silverpop Email Marketing Metrics Benchmark Study, email open rates in general average about 20%, while click rates, once that email is open, drop to 5.4%. Our open rates average at 20%, which is in line with these averages, but what about our click rates? Even though the average click rate is at 5.4%, we set the bar a bit higher and consider a 20% click rate of those who open an email to be a good, typical rate. Our average rate, across these three months, was a 25% click rate. Thats pretty good! Ideally, youd love to see more than one click per reader, meaning that they are more engaged with your email content. Our average, across these three months, was  1.9 clicks per person. Was the most highly clicked link the same as the post referenced in the winning subject line? Youd think that, since we A/B tested our email subject lines and proved which was the most powerful, the link  referenced in the subject line would also be the link people clicked on once they opened the email. Not always. As you can see from the chart above, 58% of the time the subject line was the link that received the most activity. Sometimes, though, it was quite close. Once readers opened up the email, they found something else theyd like to read more than what the email subject line advertised the email was about.

Discussion board 5 international relation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Discussion board 5 international relation - Essay Example It also may occur when individual efforts are brought or encouraged to rationalize and justify the group’s decisions (Russett, Starr and Kinsella, 2009, 179). The decision to go in war with Iraq, taken by Bush Government in 2003, was characterized by more direct pressures on those who argue against the typecasts of the group. The group thus is more likely to have features of unquestioned belief in justifying what it does, a general consensus that it is for good and a very different view that what opponents indulge with are quite evil-like-doings. Some academic scholars like Barash and Weber are of the opinion that terror is a last resort of weak as means of self defense and are those who feel militarily unable to confront their perceived enemies and thus use violence (Horowitz, 2007, p. 45). Based on this view, they argued that America’s decision of war with Iraq was basically a way of new-imperialism, in which a Centre nation uses power over periphery nations (Galtung, p.

Comparing Rhetoric Styles of Kennedy and Clinton Essay

Comparing Rhetoric Styles of Kennedy and Clinton - Essay Example John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton were not only the greatest leaders of American politics in the twentieth century, but they were two of greatest American orators also. These two prominent leaders faced many rhetorical problems during their public meetings. This paper compares similar rhetorical problems faced by Clinton during his addressing in the 1992 American Legion Convention and Kennedy during his speeches to the Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. During his election campaign speech on September 12th, 1960, John F. Kennedy addressed Houston Ministerial Association which consists of ministers from the Protestant community. Kennedy himself was a firm Roman Catholic believer and he forced to speak about his stands on religion. Because of the increasing conflicts between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, the Houston Ministerial Association members were curious to know what Kennedy says about religion or the beliefs of Protestants and Roman Catholics. In other words, Kennedy was forced to solve the problem; how to uphold his religious belief without causing any insults to the Protestants. Same way Bill Clinton also faced the same type of dilemma during his speech in the 1992 American Legion Convention. Clinton was a strong critic of Vietnam War and he had no military service experiences when he was contesting in the 1992 presidential election. The general public had some concerns about Clinton’s abilities in performing well as the commander in chief of the United States.... Both Kennedy and Clinton faced the dilemma of convincing the audience; something beyond their proven abilities, values, ideals, beliefs etc. In short, public inertia was the common rhetoric problem faced by Kennedy and Clinton. Inertia is the property of an object to stay in its position until an external force changes its position. Both Kennedy and Clinton applied the external force through their speeches to change the beliefs of the audience. I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood (Ken nedy) Here Kennedy tries to uphold his belief in secular values. He tries to convince the public that in an election campaign, religious beliefs and customs have less prominence in front of the interests of the country. He has stressed the importance of isolating religion from politics during this speech. He argued that America should never become a country which takes orders from the heads of different religions. He had also mentioned that any activity against a particular religion or community should be treated as the activity against the American. In other words, he neither supported his community (Roman Catholics) nor he opposed his opponent community (Protestants). He has maintained a neutral approach about religious beliefs throughout his speeches. Thus he

Why is terrorism difficult to define Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Why is terrorism difficult to define - Essay Example Terrorism, as Oxford dictionary describes, is (1) "government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94 . . . " and (2) "policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted." It is interesting to see that both definitions hold a common viewpoint for those people who resort to threats and violence that is outside the normal oppositional struggle against their enemies. Although this definition is easy to understand, if we look deeper we can find that this definition is vague. The question that this definition fails to answer is ‘How do we measure what extent of violence is considered ''outside the normal oppositional struggle'’? As we begin to understand this problem, we find that there is no objective criterion available to us to gauge what extent of violence and threat can be called as an act of 'terrorism'. This difficulty to find what qualifies as an act of terrorism is even more diff icult since ‘terror’ is used to describe a strategy rather than an act. The strategy is to send a message to the higher ups in the government that they and their policies are vulnerable, that there is common voice in the public that are against government’s policies and that public has the capacity to attack the government in case those policies aren’t removed. The most common type of terrorism in the world is religion related. Multitude organizations all over the globe fight to uphold their religion.

Smoking Should be Banned in all Public Places

Smoking Should be Banned in all Public Places The numbers of people who smoke have increase over the years. Although they are equipped with the knowledge of how unhealthy smoking can be, people still choose to smoke. It is a personal choice and a highly addictive habit. Smokers choose to subject themselves to the health risks of smoking. It is not for the government or any third party to dictate whether or not a person should be allowed to smoke. However, smoking does not only affect the smoker negatively. It also affects all the people around those who smoke because when people smoke in pubic the smoke travels everywhere through the air, and the negative effects of this smoke affects all living, breathing creatures. Therefore smoking should be banned in all public places. People who smoke in public portray a bad example. Children are easily influenced in their growing stages. They imitate the people around them because they cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore they perceive the actions they see around them as the way things should be. Besides that, teenagers who see people smoke in public take it as precedent to start smoking as well. There is a saying that goes monkey see monkey do, which tells us that people imitate the actions of others as they see it in their daily lives. Teenagers happen to think that smoking makes a person cool. When they see adults doing it on the streets it strengthens their belief in the coolness of smoking. Some teenagers think that smoking marks their transition into adulthood and maturity. Hence, more teenagers start smoking due to the influence of seeing other people smoke in public places. If smoking is banned in public areas, it will promote a healthier lifestyle for everyone. People will see it as a government endorsement for a healthier lifestyle of everybody. This is because by banning smoking in public areas the government sends the message that the government cares about the health of the citizens and that the government discourages people from smoking. Thus, when smoking is not allowed in public areas it reminds people that health care is very important. It reminds each and every person that the government is seriously concerned for the well being of its citizens. Therefore, people would be reminded to live a healthy lifestyle. If smoking is banned in public places it safeguards the life of the smoker as well as that of the public. Studies have shown that second hand smoke kills. Second hand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections and asthma attacks in children. Besides that, second hand smoke causes heart diseases and lung cancer in smoking and non-smoking adults. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer (CDC, 2009). These studies have proven that second hand smoke can cause cancer and is extremely bad for both the smokers and non-smokers health. In addition, the CDC also states that, The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in theUnited States (CDC, 2009). This means that just by being near people who are smoking, innocent people are dying of diseases that are caused by second hand smoke. This violates a non-smokers right to live a healthy lifestyle because just by being in public places where other people smoke they are subjected to breathing in toxic fumes. Consequently, the health of innocent non-smokers who are in public places are being jeopardized against their will. By disallowing people who smoke from smoking in public, it will cause smokers to smoke less. Because smoking is not allowed in public, people are only allowed to smoke in their homes. This would mean that as long as they are out of their homes: at work, when they eat out, at the movies or even at the parks, they cannot smoke.ÃÆ'‚Â   Smokers will have to wait until they get home to light up a cigarette. As a result, their cigarette consumption reduces and they smoke less. This in turn will benefit the smokers who have been trying to quit smoking but are unable to because they have more reason to stop. The law prohibits them from smoking in public areas, so cigarette consumption is reduced. Also, should they have an urge to smoke in public they will put in extra effort to quash the craving because it is punishable by law. In addition, there is less temptation for smokers who want to quit smoking if the ban is enforced because no one will offer them cigarettes. Therefore, this a llows them to abstain from smoking. This theory is proven in a report published in The Daily Mail (2008), stating, At least 400,000 people inEngland have quit smoking as a result of the ban on lighting up in public places that was introduced last July. Smokers will benefit from this ban because it will help them reduce the amount as well as the frequency of smoking and it could also help them break their addiction to cigarettes. In the long run it could help them quit, and also help them develop healthier lifestyles. If smoking is not allowed in public areas it discourages non-smokers from starting to smoke at all. People will not be tempted to start smoking because they know that smoking is addictive, and if smoking is not allowed in public they will suffer from withdrawal from their addiction to the nicotine from cigarettes. The Wiltshire Times (2007) postulates, New research shows that one in ten smokers claim to have quit and over half of south west smokers have thought about quitting since the nationwide ban was introduced on July 1. If smokers choose to quit or even think of quitting because of the inconvenience of not being able to smoke in public, would it not, more so, prevent a non-smoker from smoking? Surely one would not intentionally subject themselves to an addiction knowing that they will suffer withdrawal symptoms due to that addiction. By banning smoking in all public areas, the government shows support for the fact that smoking is bad, and it helps to set changes to the mind set in people reminding them that smoking is not a healthy habit. Furthermore, smoking will no longer be an issue when it comes to the influence of peers because nobody is allowed to smoke in public, so peers cannot pressure a person to start smoking. Some may argue that by preventing smokers from smoking in public, it infringes upon their rights. It is true that smokers have rights and these rights should not be infringed upon. However, a non-smokers right to breathe clean air should be taken into consideration as well. When people smoke in public areas the toxic fumes travel through the air and into the lungs of others. Many non-smokers breathe in the second hand smoke and as a result their health is compromised. Should non-smokers be subjected to these unhealthy and vile smelling fumes every time a smoker chooses to light up a cigarette? Certainly not! Smoking is a personal choice and people can choose to smoke but others should not be subjected to the health risks that come from inhaling second hand smoke. Peoples rights to breathe fresh and clean air should be protected, and along with that their right to maintain a healthy lifestyle without breathing in second hand smoke should be protected too. If people are prohibited form smoking in public it would be safer for the environment. When smokers smoke in public they tend to throw their cigarettes on the ground wherever they are. These cigarette buds are detrimental to the environment because they take a long time to decompose. According to McLaren (2005) Traditional butts are made of synthetic polymer cellulose acetate and never degrade, only breaking apart after roughly 12 years. Because the cigarette butts are not biodegradable they pollute the land. Most of the cigarette butts that are littered all over the place end up the rivers, and in the bellies of fishes and other aquatic creatures. McLaren (2005) also postulates that, within an hour of contact with water, cigarette butts can begin leaching chemicals such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into the marine environment. This pollutes the water supply that will inevitably end up in the stomachs of all living creatures. If the smoking ban is enforced the littering of these buds will no longer be an issue and the environment will be cleaner and healthier for everyone. If the current situation continues, the health of many people will remain in danger. The death toll for heart and lung diseases as well as the death toll for cancer will continue to gradually increase if the current smoking situation is not corrected. By putting forth a ban of smoking in public places the government promotes a healthier lifestyle for everybody and it protects every citizen from many diseases and health risks such as cancer and other deadly diseases. Besides that, the ban will eliminate the bad example set fort by people smoking in the public. Children and teenagers will then have a mindset implemented by the government that smoking is bad. The ban will discourage non-smokers from starting to smoke, thus preventing them from getting addicted to cigarettes. Also, it will encourage smokers to quit, and aid them on the difficult journey to be freed from the bounds of addiction. Consequently there will be no cigarette buttes littered all over the place affecting the environment negatively.ÃÆ'‚Â   By prohibiting people from smoking in public the go vernment is protecting the God given rights of its people to live a full and healthy life. It encourages people to take steps to better their quality of life and to take care of themselves as well as the people around them. Therefore, smoking should be banned in all public places. References McLaren, W. (2005). Cigarette Butts: One Huge Problem, Two Solutions. Treehugger. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/cigarette_butts.php One in Ten Quit Smoking Since Ban (2007). Wiltshire Times. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/1706214.one_in_ten_quit_smoking_since_ban/ Secondhand Smoke (2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit (2008). Mail Online. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1030575/Smoking-ban-spurs-400-000-people-quit-habit.html

Free Macbeth Essays: Duncan - The Ideal Ruler? :: GCSE Coursework Macbeth Essays

Duncan - The Ideal ruler in Macbeth?  Ã‚      Establishing whether Duncan was or was not an ideal ruler is crucial when examining Macbeth. Not only would a definite negative answer help in our understanding of the background of the play but it would also, in a way, justify Macbeth  s decision of killing Duncan. When the play opens Duncan receives a report from the battlefield. The audience finds out that the threat which Scotland faces is of a double nature. A Norwegian invasion is being assisted by two rebellious thanes - Macdonwald and Cawdor. While an external attack is something to be expected of in the times when fame was gained in military conquests, the internal rebellion is something of a different matter. It suggests one important thing - if a rebellion was possible than the king  s power couldn  t have been very strong. Traitors can be found in every society, but it is the ruler  s duty to discover conspiracies and to punish the people involved in them before they have a chance to enact their schemes. The internal rebellion shows that Duncan lacked the ability (and/or means) to do so - maybe he was naive and did not believe that his thanes could actually turn against him. Duncan  s lack of power and control over his country is also proved by his military dependence. It is uncertain whether Duncan himself has been fighting in the war - it is possible that he has not; as in Act one he only receives news from the battlefield. It might, of course, be argued that Shakespeare did not want to include a huge battle scene in his play but, nevertheless, it looks like Duncan has not been fighting himself. This was not the custom in the Middle Ages - the ruler  s conduct in battle was to serve as an example to all the warriors. Shakespeare does not state how old Duncan is but, judging from the fact that he has two grown sons, he is not in his youth. In quite a few stage productions of Macbeth this has been taken into account. In Trevor Nunn  s 1976 film of his stage production of Macbeth Duncan is portrayed as an old, feeble and sick man. This may explain why he does not take part in the battle. He is old and ill and depends on the loyalty of his warlords. Duncan  s fate depends upon two of his most powerful warriors - Macbeth and Banquo.