So, after all the excitement about Facebook and Twitter as communities and marketing panaceas, a recent study by McKinsey & Company reports something counter-intuitive: good, “old fashioned” e-mails prove to be 40 times more effective than Facebook and Twitter combined.

That is, if your goal is to acquire customers, and not just share the latest family news or travel experience.

I don't really understand why they say this is "counter-intuitive". I have believed for a long time that social media was not a good channel for businesses. It costs a lot of money to be in those channels because of the immediacy that customers expect, but more importantly these channels are not targeted whatsoever. When posting on Twitter or Facebook, everyone gets to see what is being posted. Whether those are the customers you are trying to target or not. It is an even worse channel when it comes to current customers.

It’s a lot of work, but the the research sighted Williams-Sonoma which reported a 10% improvement in response rates by personalizing their e-mails, based on the customer’s on-site and catalog shopping preferences.

Another interesting comment. Of course there is better response when the emails are targeted to customer behavior. When customers get offers that are tailored to their behavior they spend more, it is just a simple fact. When email is used as a simple newsletter channel, they will get lost. Don't over communicate and keep the offers tailored. Those are the keys to effective email marketing.