I’ve said in the past that I think that best practices are primarily technical. I don’t believe there is a best frequency or a best time to send mail or a best image to text ratio.

My top 6 best practices every marketer should be doing (and too few are).

1. Send technically correct email. That means finding a developer who understands the various email related RFCs including 5321 and 5322 as well as the MIME standard, HTML standards and encoding standards. Don’t rely solely on your vendor to create a correct email for you.
2. Stop sending mail to non-existent or abandoned email addresses. This means correctly handling addresses that bounce and implementing some sort of data hygiene that’s appropriate for your lists and market segments.
   
3. Use VERP in your mail strings. VERP means each email is tagged with the subscriber, list, and even mailing. Having that data encoded in the headers allows troubleshooting, bounce processing and FBL processing much, much easier.
4. Send only opt-in mail. I know a lot of people argue permission is passé but I don’t believe that is true. ISPs, receivers and filtering companies don’t like it when you send mail without permission.
5. Be up front with recipients how you’re going to use their email address. Don’t hide the opt-in language in your privacy policy.
   
6. Send a welcome message. Introduce yourself, introduce your program, get your message in front of your new subscriber as soon as possible after they subscribed. They’re interested in what you have to offer, get into their inbox ASAP to engage them before they move on.
   

How you implement these practices depends on your particular infrastructure, goals and recipient base. Mailers should, though, have appropriate implementations of practices.

It’s a good read, and I strongly encourage everyone to go give it a look.

But his post led me to a post by Andrew Kordek at Trendline where he claims that there is an industry rule of thumb that says 6 months is the rule of thumb to define an inactive.

Wait, What?

I know there’s a huge amount of controversy in the email space about whether or not you should purge inactive addresses. I know there are some very vocal people who think that removing inactive addresses is tantamount to marketing suicide. But where did 6 months come from? Who made it an industry standard?

If we don’t know where the standard came from, if we don’t know why we’re doing it then what kind of mickey mouse industry are we running here?

There is a lot about email marketing that is empirical. You poke the black box on one side and see what happens on the other. The problem with that is, that we can “discover” a lot of effects that aren’t real, but somehow turn into “you must do this!”

I have no doubt there are times when a 6 month expiry is a good idea. A number of my clients over the last few years use a much, much shorter time because that’s what works for them. I also know there are times when longer expiry times are a good idea, too.

It’s really important that when you’re making decisions about your email marketing program that you don’t mindlessly apply “standards” to what you’re doing. Think about the practical effects of your decisions and put them in context with your overall business plan.

To do otherwise is to kneecap your email marketing program.

Some of my clients even show me numbers that show that a recipient that hadn’t opened or read and email in 18 months, suddenly made a multi-hundred dollar purchase. Another client had clear numbers that showed even recipients that didn’t open for an entire year were responsible for 10% of revenue.

They tell me I can’t expect them to let their customers go. These are significant amounts of money and they won’t let any potential revenue go without a fight.

I understand this, I really do. The bottom line numbers do make it tough to argue that inactive subscribers should be removed. Particularly when the best we can offer is vague statements about how delivery may be affected by sending mail to unengaged users.

I don’t think many senders realize that when they talk about unengaged users they are actually talking about two distinct groups of recipients.

The first group is that group of users that actively receive email, but who aren’t opening or reading emails from particular senders. This could be because of their personal filters, or because the mail is going to the bulk folder or even simply because they don’t load images by default. This is the pool that most senders think of when they’re arguing against removing unengaged users.

The second group is that group of users that never logs in ever. They have abandoned the email address and never check it. I wrote a series of posts on Zombie Emails (Part 1, 2, 3) last September, finishing with suggestions on how to fight zombie email addresses.

Unlike senders ISPs can trivially separate the abandoned accounts from the recipients who just don’t load images. Sending to a significant percentage of zombie accounts makes you look like a spammer. Not just because spammers send mail to really old address lists, but a number of spammers pad their lists with zombie accounts in order to hide their complaint rates. The ISPs caught onto this trick pretty quickly and also discovered this was a good metric to use as part of their filtering.

I know it’s difficult to face the end of any relationship. But an email subscription isn’t forever and if you try to make it forever then you may face delivery problems with your new subscribers.

The whole article is a lesson in how to do email right. They are sending relevant and engaging mail to their subscribers. They kept the addresses of people who wanted the mail, but designed a new program from the ground up. All of the key points I, and others, keep talking about is present in their new program.

• they had a defined content strategy
• they had permission to send
• they sent consistently
• they sent engaging emails
• they maintained their lists aggressively

In short, they provided a valuable set of emails that their recipients wanted effectively. And with a list 25% of the size of the unengaged list they started with, they have doubled online sales.

There are a number of things that ISPs are monitoring besides complaint rates, although they are being cautious about revealing what and how they are measuring things. I expect that ISPs are measuring things like:

• How many users read a particular mail?
• How many users click through on a particular mail?
• How many users have the senders from: address in their address book?
• How many users receiving the mail have abandoned their accounts or not logged in for months?
• How many users never open a particular mail?

Some of these values senders can measure as well. Senders know, for instance, how many users click through on a mail. They know that some people do open the mail, and they know that some people don’t open the mail. The numbers on opens are not always completely accurate, as to measure opens the recipient must load HTML images. But images are not rendered by default in a number of email clients, and some ISPs don’t show images unless the recipient agrees, or the sender is in the recipient’s address book or the sender is certified by a 3rd party.

Senders don’t have any way of knowing, however, if an email account has been abandoned. That’s something that only the ISPs know. Because of the tools that senders have, there is no difference between an account that doesn’t load images and doesn’t click on any links and one that has been abandoned. Both of these cases will hurt a sender’s reputation, but the abandoned account will hurt more. The ISP figures that if you’re sending mail for months and months to recipients who don’t even log in, that you’re not engaging readers and sending mail recipients want.

What can senders do?

• Senders with websites requiring a login can disable email to that user. The users account can be  and notify users that they will need to resubscribe to the email list when the user next logs in at the site.
• Senders that do not have registration can send re-engagement campaigns to recipients who have not clicked or opened a mail. Users that do not interact with the mail are dropped from the list.

Yes, you will lose names off your list. But those are people who aren’t interested enough in your mail to read it or click on anything for months and months. What value is that name bringing to your business? Does that value outweigh the reputation hit that continuing to mail non-responsive addresses brings?

That’s when they call me in, usually asking me if I can go to the ISPs and tell the ISPs that they’re not spammers, they’re doing everything right and will the ISP please stop unfairly blocking them. Usually I will agree to talk to the ISPs, if fixing the underlying problems doesn’t improve their delivery on its own. But before we can talk to the ISPs, we have to try to fix things and at least have some visible changes in behavior to take to them. Once they have externally visible changes, then we can ask the ISPs for a little slack.

With these clients there isn’t just one thing they’ve done to create their bad reputation. Often nothing they’re doing is really evil, it’s just a combination of sorta-bad practices that makes their overall reputation really bad. The struggle is fixing the reputation requires more than one change and no single change is going to necessarily make an immediate improvement on their reputation.

This is a struggle for the customer, because they have to start thinking about email differently. Things have to be done differently from how they’ve always been done. This is a struggle for me because I can’t guarantee if they do this one thing that it will have improved delivery. I can’t guarantee that any one thing will fix their delivery, because ISPs measure and weight dozens of things as part of their delivery making decisions. But what I can guarantee is that if they make the small improvements I recommend then their overall reputation and delivery will improve.

What small improvement have you made today?

The post touches on a point I’ve certainly tried to explain to clients and senders in general.

Email, of course, is free.

Except it’s not. The friction that slows down sending email to everyone all the time is the cost of all the people you’ll lose. You might lose them because they unsubscribe, or more likely, you’ll train them to ignore you. Worse still, you might just make them annoyed enough to badmouth you.

Yes! Not only do senders risk alienating subscribers, those non-responsive addresses can turn into a reputation liability. The reputation schemes at most of the major ISPs look at if recipients interacting with email. Training recipients to ignore mail trains the reputation filters that mail, and mail from that sender in general, isn’t wanted.

Senders must implement list hygiene programs and data segmentation to keep reputation high.

Mark Brownlow has more on why list hygiene programs are critical.