The 2 methods are defined as
——
1) A unique tracking image inserted into the email was loaded: confirming that the images in the email were rendered.
2) A link in the email was clicked: since obviously a link cannot be clicked if the email was not opened, this method allows us to track some of the people missed by the first method.
——

I remember reading the click / render definition in the EEC pdf. However, looking back it seems I remember what I read on http://blog.emailexperience.org/2009/04/the_value_of_the_render_rate.html

1) Right, sorry! When I replied I already forgot what i read

2) As far as I understood it the Render Rate DOES NOT include the clicks, but only the image rendering. That’s the whole point of it existence. It’s not a new name for the OpenRate, it is something different that measure a different thing.

I just downloaded the “The Email Render Rate – 01-09.pdf” and the definition only include “images”, never talk about clicks. clicks are included in the Actions metrics.

If they changed this, and RenderRate is simply a new name for OpenRate then I agree that we don’t need it, but I hope it’s not.

1) I briefly addressed that some clicks with no renders were counted. “If a user clicks on a link in an email that has not had an image rendered, some ESPs count that as an open as well as a click. In other cases, visiting a link in an email with no image rendered is just a click, no open is recorded.”

2) I didn’t really want to get into the RenderRate discussion in this post as it would distract from the point which was to clear up some of the misconceptions about Open Rate. However, there are some systemic problems with the RenderRate. I think the name indicates one thing: number of emails that had an image rendered. Unfortunately, the calculation is something completely different: number of emails that had an image rendered plus the number of emails with no image rendered but did have a click. That’s why I said rename, because the instance you include an email that did not render an image, you’re actually measuring something other than the number of images rendered. I also think that the measurement doesn’t measure anything relevant about performance. RenderRate is also a secondary measurement. I prefer to measure things that directly improve the client’s bottom line.

3) At least a couple of the examples I used are things that people do, but shouldn’t, use Open Rate for. As I said in a private email to someone, I believe he second best thing to do with open rate is standardize the calculation and rename. The best is, of course, take it out back and put it out of our misery.

Don’t you think that RenderRate will slightly reduce the misunderstanding of the metric?

Not really. The EEC is including non-rendered emails in the calculation which is not going to decrease any confusion. They’re also attempting to change an existing lexicon in an entire industry which is difficult at best. I don’t see RenderRate replacing Open Rate

Thanks for putting this together, and for not just broadly disparaging/disregarding open rate. It’s an imperfect metric, but not a useless one. This is the most thought-out critique of its uses and shortcomings I’ve seen.

Stefano,

I believe Laura touches on inferred opens (“clicked but not rendered”) in the 4th paragraph (“What is an open?”).

2. EEC is not proposing to RENAME OpenRate to RenderRate. They are 2 different things and RenderRate is a NEW metric. IMHO both can survive, RenderRate simply leave less space for personalization of the metric (as you see we, experts, already disagree on the definition of OpenRate).

3. As you explained at the top of the article, when I ask to senders what OpenRate is they tell me the definition you wrote under “What the open rate isn’t” So I’d add a “Should” to “What senders use open rates for”.

And now my question: don’t you think that RenderRate will slightly reduce the misunderstanding of the metric?