Eight, ten, twelve recipient groups. That level of segmentation in an email setup is a reality for many organisations today – and a clear ambition for others.
17. marts 2026
The ambition is understandable: you want to be relevant. You do not want to send the same thing to everyone, because by now we know that uniform communication rarely creates engagement or conversion.
We see that the systems make it possible to divide recipients into ever finer groups, and you get the experience of hitting the mark more and more precisely, and sending more and more responsibly, as the segmentation grows.
At the same time we often see that the level of content does not keep up. The variation is frequently smaller than the structure suggests. And although the ambition of greater relevance is a sympathetic one, and segmentation can feel like a step in the right direction, an imbalance between ambition and capacity can have negative consequences for the relationship.
In our work we see that the organisations succeeding best with segmentation have one thing in common: a strong, well-maintained content base.
Because every segment demands its own content. Every variation demands a lift in editorial quality. And that is a content base and a quality level that has to be worked on continuously. This is where the balance sometimes tips: the structure becomes more detailed than the content can carry.
In practice our experience is that the balance can largely be restored with small adjustments: a changed opening with a sharper hook. A different order of priority. Perhaps a minor tweak of the language. All small interventions – provided they are made continuously, and provided the purpose is clear.
Dividing your recipients into smaller groups can absolutely be worthwhile. But in reality the division does not necessarily create differentiated value in itself. Segmentation is fundamentally an internal tool. The recipient does not see the structure behind it. They do not know which segment ”box” they have been placed in, and that is not what matters either.
What matters is the content of the email landing in the inbox. The recipient scans and decodes it quickly: is this relevant to me or not?
The consequence is that if the content feels considered and meaningful, it strengthens the relationship – and conversely, questionable quality can lead to a questionable attachment. And ultimately an inactive recipient, if not an unsubscribe.
the content gives a real reason to divide the recipients, and each segment gets content that genuinely differs.
the quality of the content base can be kept high, and the variations add meaning.
the segmentation grows out of relevance to the recipient – not out of what the system makes possible.
the level of segmentation matches what the organisation can service properly.
Segmentation can be a powerful tool. But if the real value is to match the ambition, the content has to be able to keep up.
We typically see that successful segmentation rests less on how finely you can divide – and more on how consistently you can deliver. On quality. On relevance. On respect for the recipient's attention.
Perhaps the question is therefore not how many segments you can define. But how many you can service properly. And whether the content can carry the level of segmentation you have chosen.