{"id":6293,"date":"2015-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-02-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.litmus.com\/blog\/use-testing-to-continuously-learn-more-about-your-audience\/"},"modified":"2025-12-18T16:24:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T21:24:12","slug":"use-testing-to-continuously-learn-more-about-your-audience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.litmus.com\/blog\/use-testing-to-continuously-learn-more-about-your-audience","title":{"rendered":"Use Testing to Continuously Learn More About Your Audience"},"content":{"rendered":"

In order to produce well-performing campaigns, it\u2019s crucial to send emails that not only render well, but also resonate with your audience. But, how do you know what type of content, calls-to-action (CTAs), and design work best for your audience? It\u2019s easy: test! Through testing<\/a>, you can gain insights into your subscribers and their preferences that help you send strategic, optimized, and better-performing campaigns.<\/p>\n

The team over at Emerson<\/a>, a manufacturing and technology company, wanted to generate interest in their product by offering a free trial via email. While they knew their B2B audience consisted mostly of conservative, middle-aged engineers, they were unsure which type of offer would resonate best\u2014and ultimately produce the most leads.<\/p>\n

So, they set out to test…and test…and test again! (Looking to test your emails? Book a Litmus demo.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

While their results were surprising, they now know which types of email perform well with their audience. More importantly, they have instilled testing in their process, allowing them to learn even more about their subscribers over time.<\/p>\n

A\/B TEST: FREE TRIAL VS. WHITE PAPER<\/h2>\n

Emerson\u2019s first test was to see whether including a white paper alongside a free trial would generate more leads than simply a free trial alone. Their hypothesis was that the white paper would distract from the free trial, producing fewer leads. They sent 50% of their audience the \u201cfree trial only\u201d email, and the other 50% received the combination free trial and white paper version.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"Email1\"<\/figure>\n

Control email<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"Email2\"<\/figure>\n

Test email<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

This test also pitted two CTAs against one another: the CTA in the control email enticed readers with a \u201cFree trial and installation\u201d while the test version asked subscribers to \u201cDownload the white paper.\u201d In both emails, the CTAs are in the same place and use the same color\u2014one in the header image and one at the bottom of the email. In the test email, there is also a secondary CTA in the sidebar for a \u201cFree trial and free installation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The subject line also drew attention to the inclusion of the white paper, stating \u201c[White Paper] The Impact of Failed Steam Traps on Process Plants.\u201d The control email used \u201cFree Trial & Installation: Capture Energy Savings with Automated Steam Trap Monitoring\u201d.<\/p>\n

The results<\/h3>\n

The results really threw the Emerson team for a loop! For starters, the subject line of the test email resulted in 23% more unique opens than the control email. While the control had a 8.92% open rate, the test had a 10.96% open rate. This showed Emerson that their subscribers are more apt to open an email that included content rather than just a free trial.<\/p>\n

While both emails generated the same amount of interest in the free trial, the white paper was significantly more popular than the free trial and generated additional inquires. Take a look at the clicks for the emails:<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n

Control Email<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Test Email<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total CTR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

0.77%<\/td>\n2.77%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Unique CTR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

0.49%<\/td>\n1.33%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

WHERE ARE PEOPLE CLICKING?<\/h2>\n

After using A\/B testing<\/a> to see what type of offer (content vs. trial) resonates well with their audience, Emerson began adding content offers to their free trial emails. However, they wanted to determine if clicking on a white paper CTA or a free trial CTA indicated interest in the trial. Their hypothesis was pretty straightforward\u2014that clicks on a free trial link indicated more interest in free trials than clicks on a white paper CTA.<\/p>\n

\"Email3\"<\/figure>\n

They started tracking the location of clicks in each email and cross-referencing these clicks to inquiries and interest about the offers:<\/p>\n

\"email-clicks\"<\/figure>\n

Once again, the white paper received significantly more clicks than the free trial itself. However, both free trial CTAs received the same amount of clicks\u201419. The sidebar CTA received 14 clicks on the button and 5 clicks on the corresponding image, while the CTA at the bottom received 19 clicks on the button. But, which CTA placement led to the most leads and the most interest in a trial?<\/p>\n

Lead generation forms for both CTAs had the same qualification questions: 1) Are you interested in learning more about a specific product? 2) Are you interested in a free trial?<\/p>\n

Forms that were submitted without checking either of those boxes were considered inquiries, forms with any two checkboxes were considered leads, and forms with both checkboxes filled in were considered interested in the offer.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"email-inquiries\"<\/figure>\n

Email inquiries<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"email-leads\"<\/figure>\n

Email leads<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"email-interest\"<\/figure>\n

Email offer interest<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Once again, the results surprised them! The initial interest in the white paper generated more clicks that later became leads\u2014and not only leads, but leads expressing interest in the trial offer. Their conclusion: content really is king.<\/p>\n

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU RE-SEND AN EMAIL?<\/h2>\n

Re-sending messages (especially to non-openers<\/a>) is a frequently debated email marketing tactic. When making the decision to re-send messages, you might consider using the same email, or re-writing a message to differentiate from the first send. Which practice is most effective, and a better use of marketing resources?<\/p>\n

This was another question that the team at Emerson wanted to answer. While they filtered out anyone who had already downloaded the white paper or signed up for a free trial, they re-sent the exact same email to those who had not. The email sends were one week apart. The only difference between the two emails was their subject lines:<\/p>\n