Best Method to Populate Correct Tokens on LP

[Anonymous]

We're going to be running a customer email campaign that let's people know their plans are being migrated automatically unless they choose something else. For example, let's say the plans are for cars. The LP has a table populated with tokens that looks something like this (and it goes up to 7 rows - I'm just showing you 2):

Car License No.	Average Use	Recommended Plan
{{lead.car 1}} ​	{{lead.average use 1}}	{{lead.plan 1}}
{{lead.car 2}} ​	{{lead.average use 2}}	{{lead.plan 2}}

What is the best way to ensure the tokens populate correctly? If I pass the email address in a hidden field in the URL, will that ensure Marketo populates the tokens from the fields associated with that email address?

I'm asking because in my own tests, the first time I tried it my tokens were empty and on the form, my email address, etc., was populating with based on a different email address I had been using for test form fills in the past. That shouldn't be the case with customers, but you never know.

[SanfordWhiteman · Accepted solution]

If you absolutely, categorically, with no exceptions require that the token values shown are for the lead that received the email and not for another lead that might be associated with their browser session -- then yes, you need to pass the email address and re-do the association if a non-matching email is found in the page (before showing the sensitive data).

Almost nobody -- maybe in fact nobody -- actually does this.

We make the 99.99% accurate assumption that an existing lead associated with a session is, at the very least, someone whose info the human lead is allowed to see.

If you want to add more precision, you'll need a developer who is strong in these areas.

[Anonymous]

Hi Sanford - It's not so much that the data is sensitive as that it needs to be correct - because we're informing people that their plans are being changed and offering various options. Continuing the assumption that we're talking about cars, I wouldn't want someone to say - those are not my cars, what are they talking about? I take your point about the 99.99% accurate assumption and am reassured. If we did want to go the extra mile and make sure the passed email address matched the populated email address - I'm thinking I would need to make a second email address field (and populate it from the standard field) in order to have on the form both a hidden field to receive the passed email address as well as a visible email address field with pre-fill enabled. Do you agree?

Thank you, as always!

Denise

[SanfordWhiteman]

You wouldn't need a secondary field.  The code that compares the autofilled email with the passed email can read it right out of the URL.

[Anonymous]

I see that I wouldn't need to populate the secondary field. But wouldn't I need to have a hidden field for the URL to pass to? Or are you saying the code that compares wouldn't need to capture the data from the URL into a field?

[SanfordWhiteman]

There would be no need for a field.  You can read query parameters into a JS variable (in fact, that's the only way to get them into a hidden field as the second step).