##First pancake

Together with Math & Mind, we developed an AMP email, where we asked the user to answer several questions directly in the email.

The original version of the letter looked like this:

<Img
img="/api/uploads/blog1_2aaec46973.png"
alt="Myths About Marketing Automation"
/>
We sent it to a small test sample to check how this mechanic would work. And, to our surprise, the letter did not show any results different from a regular html letter.

##Work on mistakes

The fact is that subscribers are not yet accustomed to interactive letters, especially since it was visually no different from what was sent before. Users expected that this was the most ordinary letter and that upon clicking on the answer they would be redirected to the site.

To visually “revive” the letter and show that you can interact with it, we added a carousel on top with an increasing timer “your brain age”

<Img
img="/api/uploads/blog2_b3f51b0b84.png"
alt="Myths About Marketing Automation"
/>

This turned out to be the missing link: the test sample showed good results, and the letter was sent to the main audience.

##Results

We tracked the openings of the HTML and AMP versions separately. Unique discoveries were distributed as follows:

*HTML – 64.63%
*AMP – 35.37%
If you look at non-unique discoveries, then:

*HTML – 62.8%
*AMP – 37.2%

<Img img="/api/uploads/blog3_5c9cc8d8b8.png" alt="Myths About Marketing Automation" />

This allows us to draw an unambiguous conclusion: people are more likely to return to AMP emails.

To find out how users behave inside the letter, we installed tracking pixels on each question in our quiz: to understand the outflow of the audience, that is, how interesting such mechanics are to subscribers.

<Img img="/api/uploads/blog4_a35eca50f2.png" alt="Myths About Marketing Automation" />

The first step is 100% of users who opened the AMP version of the letter.
Answered the first question – 27.9%
On the second – 25.7%
And for the last one – 24.8%.
We see minimal audience outflow. That is, if the user has taken the first step, then with a high probability he will go all the way.

After passing this mini-quiz, we invite the user to go to the site and play some more. And here users are more loyal and interested, so they willingly go to the site. We separately tracked transitions to the site from the HTML and AMP versions of the email and these are the values ​​we got:

HTML – 6.95%
AMP – 32.54%

<Img img="/api/uploads/blog5_3b20ad6835.png" alt="Myths About Marketing Automation" />

This is how you can graphically present the resulting OR and CTR indicators with highlighting what part is accounted for by HTML and AMP openings and transitions.

<Img img="/api/uploads/blog6_71fbed4eeb.png" alt="Myths About Marketing Automation" />

From this we can conclude that the use of AMP technology and the gradual involvement of the subscriber has significantly increased the CTR!

We implemented AMP technology and gradually engaged our subscribers.

small_article2.jpg

thumbnail_article2.jpg

article2.jpg

2.5x Increase in Click-Through Rate 

##Idea

Often, we need feedback from subscribers to understand their concerns, interests, and dislikes regarding our emails. Merely analyzing open rates (OR) and click-through rates (CTR) provides limited insights, prompting marketers to resort to subscriber surveys. However, low conversion rates can hinder survey completion, as many subscribers are reluctant to leave the email and answer questions.

To address this challenge, we leveraged AMP technology to embed interactive forms directly within the email. This eliminates the need for subscribers to navigate away from the email to participate.

To further motivate engagement, we gamified the survey by incorporating a magic ball that would answer the subscriber's questions. 

The user's question was saved on the server, and a random response ("yes," "no," or "I don't know") was displayed within the email. 

<Img
img="/api/uploads/blog_3_1_0d41492e6b.gif"
alt="Myths About Marketing Automation"
/>
###Metrics 

AMP doesn't work for everyone, so we collected and measured HTML and AMP version openings separately. 

Unique opens were distributed as follows:

*AMP – 56.3%
* HTML – 43.7%

If we look at non-unique opens, then:

*AMP – 62.13%
* HTML – 37.87%

<Img
img="/api/uploads/blog_3_2_2f4f2b48b6.png"
alt="Myths About Marketing Automation"
/>

When comparing the ratio of unique and non-unique opens between the HTML and AMP versions of the email, it becomes evident that users returned to AMP emails more frequently. 

On average, users returned to an AMP email 1.36 times, compared to 1.07 times for an HTML email.


###Form Submission Conversion

On average, for every user who opened the AMP version, there were **1.69** form submissions. This means that many subscribers filled out and submitted the form multiple times.

Even when considering only unique users who submitted the form, the result is still impressive: **20.74%.**

The game mechanics had an effect, and many of those who decided to submit the form did so several more times afterward. It was particularly interesting to observe how a subscriber would ask the same question to the "Magic Ball" until they received the desired answer.

Blog