Apparently, some time back in 2002 someone opted in an address that didn’t belong to them to a marketing database. It may have been a hard to read scribble that was misread when the data was scanned (or typed) into the database. It could be that the person didn’t actually know their email address. There are a lot of ways spamtraps can end up on lists that don’t involve malice on the part of the sender.

But I can’t help thinking that mailing an address for 10 years, where the person has never ever responded might be a sign that the address isn’t valid. Or that the recipient might not want what you’re selling or, is not actually a potential customer.

I wrote a few weeks back about the difference between delivery and marketing. That has sparked conversations, including one where I discovered there are a lot of marketers out there that loathe and despise delivery people. But it’s delivery people who understand that not every email address is a potential purchaser. Our job is to make sure that mail to non-existent “customers” doesn’t stop mail from actually getting to actual potential customers.

Email doesn’t have an equivalent of “occupant” or “resident.” Email marketers need to pay attention to their data quality and hygiene. In the snail mail world, that isn’t true. My parents still get marketing mail addressed to me, and I’ve not lived in that house for 20+ years. Sure, it’s possible an 18 year old interested in virginia slims might move into that house at some point, and maybe that 20 years of marketing will pay off. It only costs a few cents to keep that address on their list and the potential return is there.

In email, though, sending mail to addresses that don’t have a real recipient there has the potential to hurt delivery to all other recipients on your list. Is one or two bad addresses going to be the difference between blocked and inbox? No, but the more abandoned addresses and non-existent recipients on a list there are on a list, the more likely filters will decide the mail isn’t really important or wanted.

The cost of keeping that address, one that will never, ever convert on a list may mean losing access to the inbox of actual, real, converting customers.

The general response from the marketing side of things appeared to be that ISPs need to stop actually filtering marketing email. That would resolve the problems from the marketers perspective. I don’t necessarily think that will help. I believe if marketers had unfettered access to the inbox, most inboxes would be totally un-useable.

My thinking triggered other folks to consider delivery and marketing and what drives both. George Bilbrey, from Return Path, posted an article in Mediapost looking at why good delivery is an important part of a good marketing strategy.

George points out many marketers really do act as if delivery is separate and detrimental to good marketing.

I hear this with my clients and I hear this on discussion lists.  They think that the practices that drive high inbox placement rates are antithetical to return on their email marketing investment.

Exactly. I hear a lot of contempt for delivery consultants and good delivery practices from a lot of marketers. They claim our methods and our recommendations come from not understanding marketing. They flat out tell me that “we’re” manufacturing delivery problems by pointing out mail that users don’t want has poor delivery.

There are thousands of companies that have never heard of Return Path, or Word to the Wise, who don’t understand why their perfectly crafted marketing isn’t getting to the inbox. It’s because they don’t understand email and delivery. They want to do what works elsewhere, and those models don’t always map onto email.

And that’s why companies like Word to the Wise and Return Path exist.

For instance in many areas of marketing repetition is key. Repeat a slogan and forge an association between the slogan and the product in the mind of the consumer. More repetition is better. Marketers can even go so far as using the same ad to drive consumer action. Television advertising is a prime example of this. Companies don’t create new content for every advertising slot, they create one or a few ads and then replay them over and over. The advertiser doesn’t even really care if the consumer consciously ignores the ads. The unconscious connection is still being made.

In the world of email delivery, though, having many or most recipients ignore advertising is the kiss of death. Too many unengaged users and filters decide that mail shouldn’t go into the inbox. These don’t even have to be ISP level filters, but Bayesian filters built into desktop mail clients.

Sending repetitive ads over email may be an effective marketing strategy, but may not be an effective delivery strategy.

Am I off base here and missing something? Tell me I’m wrong in the comments.

Now, slightly more than a year later marketers have declared FB Messaging dead.

Sometimes I think people spend way to much time believing their own press. FB messaging was never designed as a marketing platform. I said as much back in November 2010 when it was announced.

[...] I really don’t think this is going to be a marketing platform. Zuc said during his talk that the messaging of the future is: personal, immediate, informal and short. None of this applies to marketing mail. I have no doubt many marketers are going to try and get into the FBox, but that’s not what it’s for.

Really folks, stand down and stop panicking. This isn’t going to kill email, it’s just another way to message.

Color me shocked that people haven’t flocked to using their FB messaging accounts for marketing and email marketing is still going strong. Oh, wait, I predicted that, too.

[E]ven if Titan is somehow a total game changer and is going to require explicit permission, it’s not going to destroy email marketing. Everyone who has a facebook account already has another email account. Marketers who can’t get explicit permission to mail to the facebook account can certainly keep sending “permission” email to their other email accounts.

Suffice it to say, I’m not impressed with the declaration that Facebook Messaging is dead. In fact, I’m mostly wondering who thought it was ever actually alive.

All of these announcements cause much consternation in the email marketing industry. Just today there was a long discussion on the Only Influencers list about the new Hotmail filtering. There was even some discussion about why the ISPs were doing this.

I think it’s pretty simple why they’re creating new tools: users are asking for them. The core of these new filters is ISPs reacting to consumer demand. They wouldn’t put the energy into development if their users didn’t want it. And many users do and will use priority inbox or the new Hotmail filtering.

Some people are concerned that marketing email will be less effective if mail is not in the inbox.

From a marketer’s standpoint, it is a challenge because we want to get our customers’ attention, and it is harder to do that if these messages are going into a separate box. Laura Santos

I think, though, a lot of email marketing (and direct marketing in general) relies on the consumer being lazy. That’s why negative options work so well. It’s not that the user is actually making a choice, it’s that they’re not making a choice, so the marketer chooses for them. In many cases the marketer controls the channel more than the target does.

This isn’t the case in email. Marketers don’t control the channel, the ISPs and end users do. This requires a shift in thinking in order to effectively use the channel.

I’m someone who filters all my newsletters to a non-standard inbox. I’ve done it for years now. It improves my workflow and actually means when I open that box I’m more receptive to the advertising. Folks sending me newsletters don’t get to interrupt me, they get my attention when I’m ready to give it to them.

I can see how this shift – from interruption based marketing to non-interruption based marketing can be difficult for marketers. It’s a new paradigm, one that is much more challenging than getting a lazy consumer to purchase.

Adapt or Die.

Reading some of the articles on the case, though, I’m less worried. This isn’t a blogger making some statements. Instead, Ms. Cox acted more like a stalker and harasser than a reporter. The judge even concluded that had she been granted protection as a journalist it was unlikely she could prevail as there was little factual basis for her statements.

Others have done better summaries of the case and the effect and I encourage everyone to read them.

Seattle Weekly
New York Times
Ars Technica
Forbes

I also discourage folks from applying this ruling to all bloggers. It’s not clear she was doing anything journalistic. I did find it interesting that some of her techniques to ruin the lawyer’s search results were defined as Search Engine Optimization. I’ve long thought SEO was akin to spam: say something often enough in enough places and you start to dominate the conversation. Not because you have anything useful to say, but because no one can get an idea in otherwise.

One marketer described it to me as “Total marketing porn.”

I even took a screen shot of someone doing a drop of their “September Account Statement” to customers.

I even thought about trying to do some contest where I would give away some free consulting time to a sender that could make “Hi Laura” trend. But I decided that would be mean to do to recipients and to Yahoo.

But it’s amusing to think I could convince a big enough sender to trend a certain word.

Have a great weekend.

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.

Take, for example, an email I received today from a company.

I wasn’t expecting it (sloppy #1).

I never consciously signed up for it (sloppy #2). Apparently I’d bought a package they sold through Appsumo and they claim I asked for future offers. If I did, I didn’t mean to.

The email itself used a template from the sender’s ESP, but whomever wrote the copy didn’t actually proof read it (sloppy #3).

Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here will show in the preview area of some email clients.

Clearly, no one actually took the time to proof the email or even send it to themselves. Otherwise, they would have noticed the teaser text wasn’t changed.

Sloppy email marketing is a major cause of delivery problems. In this case, the error was more user visible than machine visible. But if they failed to check the machine visible information as well, that can trigger bulk foldering.

For some mailers the bulk filtering isn’t that huge a problem. The major consumer ISPs track when users go into their bulk folder and pull email out. If that happens, that improves the reputation of the sender. In this case, though, the mail is unexpected, so the recipient isn’t going to look into the bulk folder to pull it to the inbox. And even if the recipient did look in the bulk folder, it’s unlikely they would recognize it and remove it to the inbox. The sender is new, the preview text is unedited and it doesn’t look like “real” mail.

None of what the sender did here is unrecoverable. It’s not a good introduction to recipients, but it’s mostly fixable. That’s assuming the majority of recipients didn’t unsubscribe or complain. If they did, the sender probably squandered a prime marketing opportunity simply by not taking enough time to proofread their copy.