Tag Archive for 'Permission'

Engaging recipients critical for delivery

One of the issues I have touched on repeatedly is the changing face of blocking and filtering at ISPs. Over the last 12 - 18 months, large, end-user ISPs have started rolling out more and more sophisticated filters. These filters look at a lot of things about an email, not just the content or the sending IP reputation or URLs in the message but also the recipient profile. Yes, ISPs really are measuring how engaged recipients are with a sender and, they are using that information to help them make blocking decisions.

There were two separate posts on Friday related to this.

Mark Brownlow has a great blog post speculating about a number of things ISPs might be looking at when making decisions about what to do with an incoming email. He lists a number of potential measurements, some of which I can definitively confirm are being measured by ISPs.

  1. recipients never click on a link in the email
  2. emails are never moved to a folder or archived (”trash” or “junk” folders don’t count)
  3. recipients delete the email
  4. the emails are never rescued or opened when delivered to the junk folder
  5. recipients never scroll down the email
  6. recipients don’t forward the email
  7. recipients don’t use the interface’s print facility
  8. recipients over-use unsubscribe links
  9. recipients never unblock images or add sender to address list

Successful email marketing is no longer simply about permission. Senders must send engaging, wanted email. Not only does this improve recipient response and ROI, but engaging users is vital for getting delivery in the first place. As an aside, a buddy of mine who works at an ISP was very, very pleased with Mark’s post.

DJ over at Bronto blog posted Friday about a re-engagement campaign done by Shop.com. This was a 2 email campaign specifically designed to engage recipients. The takeaway:

Shop.org was so so close to a perfect execution of an email re-engagement campaign. Timing, subject line, copy, creative, calls-to-action, welcome message - all were brilliant. But…the initial dead links may have lost many. It’s hard to tell if this was a temporary issue or one that was going on for some time. How many potential reactivations did they lose? Overall, I’d consider Shop.org’s reactivation campaign a raving success. Well done Shop.org!

Engagement is no longer simply about getting a recipient to respond. Campaigns with engaged recipients are campaigns that have good delivery. Senders who ignore recipient preferences more and more see their mail trapped in a maze of delivery problems. Send good mail that recipients want and delivery problems melt away.

1 Comment

Political Spam

At Adventures in Email Marketing, there is a post up this morning about political spam. It seems Anna discovered that providing her email address on her voter registration card not only results in political groups sending her email to that address, but also that political email does not have to follow the rules of CAN SPAM. The article ends with a few questions and makes some suggestions.

In general, why do politicians get such lax rules? Did the crafters of CAN-SPAM actually thing that candidates would (or could) ethically deal with this? The examples in my inbox show something different.

The flip answer is that the drafters of CAN SPAM are the political candidates and exempted themselves from the law because they did not want to have to follow it.

The less flip answer is that regulating political speech has less legal precedent than regulating commercial speech. Including non-commercial email in CAN SPAM would open the law up to a Constitutional challenge. By not including anything other than commercial speech, which the Supreme Court has ruled can be regulated by the government, there is much less chance that the law will be overturned as unconstitutional. In the 2005 final rule document, the FTC addresses the constitutionality of the law and provides references to case law supporting the role of government to regulate commercial speech (2005 Final rule, p 57 - 64 (link to PDF)).

There have been other reports of political spam this season. Ron Paul supporters used open proxies in China to send spam pushing their candidate. Campaigns of other major candidates have open signups on their web sites, allowing anyone to forge any email address into the form. Political advocacy groups have had similar problems in the past with not verifying subscriptions and therefore generating lots of complaints because the recipient never actually signed up for the mail.

I do have clients who send political mail. What I tell them is that the bar is set so low on CAN SPAM that there is no reason they should not comply with the law even though it does not apply to them. Allowing people to unsubscribe? Providing a physical postal address? Not forging headers? Meeting these conditions is trivial for any legitimate candidate and gives the recipients that warm fuzzy feeling that the candidate is acting in good faith.

2 Comments

That’s spammer speak

I’ve been hearing stories from other deliverability consultants and some ISP reps about what people are telling them. Some of them are jaw dropping examples of senders who are indistinguishable from spammers. Some of them are just examples of sender ignorance.

“We’re blocked at ISP-A, so we’re just going to stop mailing all our recipients at ISP-A.” Pure spammer speak. The speaker sees no value in any individual recipient, so instead of actually figuring out what about their mail is causing problems, they are going to drop 30% of their list. We talk a lot on this blog about relevancy and user experience. If a sender does not care about their email enough to invest a small amount of time into fixing a problem, then why should recipients care about the mail they are sending?

A better solution then just throwing away 30% of a list is to determine the underlying reasons for  delivery issues, and actually make adjustments to  address collection processes and  user experience. Build a sustainable, long term email marketing program that builds a loyal customer base.

“We have a new system to unsubscribe people immediately, but are concerned about implementing it due to database shrink.” First off, the law says that senders must stop mailing people that ask. Secondly, if people do not want email, they are not going to be an overall asset. They are likely to never purchase from the email, and they are very likely to hit the ‘this is spam’ button and lower the overall delivery rate of a list.

Let people unsubscribe. Users who do not want email from a sender are cruft. They lower the ROI for a list, they lower aggregate performance. Senders should not want unwilling or unhappy recipients on their list.

“We found out a lot of our addresses are at non-existent domains, so we want to correct the typos.” “Correcting” email addresses is an exercise in trying to read recipients minds. I seems intuitive that someone who typed yahooooo.com meant yahoo.com, or that hotmial.com meant hotmail.com, but there is no way to know for sure. There is also the possibility that the user is deliberately mistyping addresses to avoid getting mail from the sender. It could be that the user who mistyped their domain also mistyped their username. In any case, “fixing” the domain could result in a sender sending spam.

Data hygiene is critical, and any sender should be monitoring and checking the information input into their subscription forms. There are even services which offer real time monitoring of the data that is being entered into webforms. Once the data is in the database, though, senders should not arbitrarily change it.

0 Comments

Signup forms and bad data

One thing I frequently mention, both here on the blog and with my clients, is the importance of setting recipient expectations during the signup process. Mark Brownlow posted yesterday about signup forms, and linked to a number of resources and blog posts discussing how to create user friendly and usable signup forms.

As a consumer, a signup process for an online-only experience that requires a postal address annoys and frustrates me to no end. Just recently I purchased a Nike + iPod sport kit. Part of the benefit to this, is free access to the Nike website, where I can see pretty graphs showing my pace, distance and time. When I went to go register, however, Nike asked me to give them a postal address. I know there are a lot of reasons they might want to do this, but, to my mind, they have no need to know my address and I am reluctant go give that info out. An attempt to register leaving those blanks empty was rejected. A blatantly fake street address (nowhere, nowhere, valid zipcode) did not inhibit my ability to sign up at the site.

Still, I find more and more sites are asking for more and more information about their site users. From a marketing perspective it is a no-brainer to ask for the information, at least in the short term. Over the longer term, asking for more and more information may result in more and more users avoiding websites or providing false data.

In the context of email addresses, many users already fill in random addresses into forms when they are required to give up addresses. This results in higher complaint rates, spamtrap hits and high bounce rates for the sender. Eventually, the sender ends up blocked or blacklisted, and they cannot figure out why because all of their addresses belong to their users. They have done everything right, so they think.

What they have not done is compensate for their users. Information collection is a critical part of the senders process, but some senders seem give little thought to data integrity or user reluctance to share data. This lack of thought can, and often does, result in poor email delivery.

1 Comment

Social network sends spam

Yesterday we talked about social networks that harvest the address books of registered  users and send mail to all those addresses on behalf of their registered user. In the specific case, the registered user did not know that the network was going to send that mail and subsequently apologized to everyone.

That is not the only way social networks collect addresses. After I posted that, Steve mentioned to me that he had been receiving invitations from a different social network. In that case, the sender was unknown to Steve. It was random mail from a random person claiming that they knew each other and should network on this new website site.  After some investigation, Steve discovered that the person making the invitation was the founder of the website in question and there was no previous connection between them.

The founder of the social networking site was harvesting email addresses and sending out spam inviting people he did not know to join his site.

Social networking is making huge use of email. Many of my new clients are social networking sites having problems delivering mail. Like with most things, there are some good guys who really do respect their users and their privacy and personal information. There are also bad guys who will do anything they can to grow a site, including appropriating their users information and the information of all their users correspondents.

It is relatively early in the social networking product cycle. It remains to be seen how much of an impact the spammers and sloppier end will have. If too much spam gets through, the spam filters and ISPs will adapt and social networks will have to focus more on respecting users and potential users in order for their mail to get delivered.

1 Comment

Address harvesting through social networks

The next killer ap on the Internet seems to be social networking. Everyone has a great idea for the next facebook or or myspace. All of these sites, though, have to find users. The site will fail if there are no users. One way to get new users is to ask all your current users to invite all their friends to join. This tends to lead to the marketing / product decision to insert functionality into the social networking site which allows current users to upload their address book and the site itself will send out invitations to all your friends and contacts.

This is not actually as great as an idea as it sounds, however. First, you end up with situations like what happened to me this past week.  On Wednesday I received the following email:

Hi,

I looked for you on Reunion.com, the largest people search service — but you weren’t there.

See who else has been searching for you! Click here.

—Bob

Reunion.com - Life Changes. Keep in Touch.™
You have received this email because a Reunion.com Member sent an invitation to this email address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us.
Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784

Bob is actually a current client and I recognized his full name in the from address. Bob has my current information and we have had contact within the last few weeks so I know he is not actually using reunion.com to try and find me. I spend a few minutes poking at reunion.com trying to figure out how to make the mail stop and make sure they never bother me again, discover they do not want to make that easy and give up. I can always block them if their email becomes annoying.

The next day, I receive an email from Bob, it says:

All,

If you received an email from reunion.com on my behalf, please IGNORE it as that email was sent without my knowledge and I have not sent it willingly. This email was sent to all my contacts in my email address book.

I have already cancelled my account on that site and it is really weird that the site would do this without my permission.

The site is “force inviting” people from your contacts if you register on the site, which is very annoying.

Thanks,


Bob

Because of this behaviour, reunion.com has now lost one registered user, and he has told all his contacts to avoid the site in the future.

Reunion.com is not alone in their rush to grab any address they can get a hold of. Most sites will let you upload address books, or your account information so they can mail all your contacts introducing their new product. It is an attempt to appear to be organic viral marketing, but it is not. In point of fact it is no different than randomly harvesting addresses off websites and mailing them.

Social networks need to be very careful about appropriating addresses and assuming permission. This week, reunion.com appropriated both Bob’s address and my own and assumed they had permission to email me on Bob’s behalf. In fact, they did not have Bob’s permission to appropriate his address and they certainly did not have my permission to contact me.

Many newborn social networks are using similar types of spam to spread their presence. It remains to be seen if this is a working strategy or if they are forced to actually start actually caring about permission.

3 Comments

More about FBLs and unsubscribes

In the comments of the last post, Gary DJ asked an insightful questions and I think my answer probably deserves a broader audience.

How can ESPs honor unsubscribe requests from ISPs without FBL programs (read: Yahoo!) if senders are not aware that subscribers are asking to be removed (via “Mark as Spam” links)? Yes, we can tell which clients are “good” and which are “bad,” but will continue to send to that Yahoo! recipient until we know better.

I think the disconnect here can be boiled down to: is your goal to send mail people do not complain about or is your goal to send mail that actively engages and interests your recipients? If your goal is to send mail that people don’t complain about, and thus get into the inbox at ISPs, then you are going to see problems with ISPs that measure user response and do not provide a FBL to senders. If your goal is to send mail that actively engages and interests your recipients, then you do not need the FBL in order to avoid being blocked.

I agree it would be nice if ISPs were to provide a FBL to all senders, but realistically, that is not going to happen. So you need to look at the data you have about your mailings (or as an ESP about your customers’ mailings) and make reasonable assessments of how the recipients are responding to the mail.
If the mail is being received badly, then the sender needs to take a step backwards and look at their overall email marketing program. One of the things I hammer into clients is list hygiene. Keep those lists clean. One way to do that is have a set process for engaging users after some period of time of inactivity. If you are actively only mailing people who are engaged and responsive to your mails, and purge off people who never click or never open a mail, then those Yahoo users that you mention will eventually be removed from your list.

If your Yahoo complaints are so high that you are getting blocked, you have bigger issues. Again, step back, look at your program and focus on relevancy and engagement.

Send mail that is relevant, send mail that your users want and, generally, you will not see complaint based blocking.

3 Comments

How much mail?

Yesterday I had a call with a potential new client. She told me she had a list of 4M Yahoo addresses and she wanted to mail them twice a day. Her biggest concern was that this volume would be too much for Yahoo and her mail would be block solely on volume. As we went through the conversation, she commented that this list is also being used by someone else she knows and they were getting inbox delivery at Yahoo on every mailing.

From other bits of the conversation, I suspect that these are not the only two people using this list, but I have no feel for the volume. But how much email is each person on that list receiving a day?

I have a current client who is in a similar field to the above potential client. I signed up for their list back in December. Since then I have received 1728 emails to the address I used on their site. 4 of those emails have actually been from my clients, the rest were stolen by a partner of theirs and sold off to all sorts of mailers. Yesterday I received 40 emails.

I just cannot see how this is a valid, long term business model. The bulk of these mails are advertising payday and other kinds of loans. Some of them are duplicate offers from the same senders (judged by CAN SPAM addresses) using different From: lines. The mailbox these mails are filtered into is completely useless, it has been swamped by loan offers. I cannot imagine that anyone, even someone looking for a loan, is receptive to this much email. The only thing I can figure is that the mailers believe that if their email is the one at the top of the mailbox at the exact moment the recipient gets most desperate for money in their bank account tomorrow they will make the sale and get paid.

This model is going to be less and less viable as time goes on.

On the permission level, there really is no permission associated with that email address. Sure, I could call up the former client of mine who mailed that address today and challenge them to show me where they got the address and they would probably tell me they bought it from that company over there. But when I submitted my email address to my client’s site, I did not expect to receive offers for Mickey Mouse Collectible Watches. It certainly is not what I signed up for.

Not only is the permission tenuous, but ISPs are moving away from a permission based model for access to their subscribers. What they really care about now is how recipients react to email. An email marketing model based on getting as much email in front of the recipient as possible will be harder and harder to be profitable as ISPs get better at measuring how much their subscribers want email. The mailers who get good delivery are those are able to make the mail interesting, wanted and relevant to recipients.

It is difficult for me to imagine a case where you can make 2 emails a day relevant to 4 million recipients.

7 Comments

Spamfilters are stupid

Ben over at MailChimp writes about spamfilters that are following links in emails resulting in people being unsubscribed from lists without their knowledge. I strongly suggest clients use a 2 step unsubscribe system, that does not require any passwords or information. The recipient clicks on a link in the email and confirms that they do want to be unsubscribed once they get to the unsubscribe webpage.

Even more concerning for me is the idea that people could be subscribed to emails without their knowledge. For some subset of lists, using confirmed (double) opt-in is the best way to make sure that the sender really has permission from the recipient. Now we have a spam filter that is rendering “click here to opt-in” completely useless. I am sure there are ways to compensate for the stupidity of filters. As usual, though, the spammers are doing things which push more work off onto the end user and the legitimate mailers.

4 Comments

Permission, Part 2

Permission Part 1 I talked about the definition of permission as I use it. Before we can talk about how to get permission we need to clarify the type of email that we’re talking about in this post. Specifically, I’m talking about marketing and newsletter email, not transactional email or other kinds of email a company may send to recipients. Also, when I talk about lists I include segments of a database that fit marketing criteria as well as specific list of email addresses.

There are two ways that recipients give permission to receive newsletters or marketing email, explicit permission and implicit permission. Recipients give explicit permission to receive marketing email when they sign up for such email. Implicit permission covers situations where a user provides an email address, either during the course of a purchase, a download or other interaction with a company. There may be some language in the company’s privacy policy explaining that recipients may receive marketing email, but the recipient may not be aware they will receive email.

The easier situation is explicit permission. There are two basic ways a company can gather explicit permission to send marketing email: single opt-in and double (confirmed) opt-in.

Single opt-in: Recipient provides an email address to the sender for the express purpose of receiving marketing email.

Double (or confirmed) opt-in: Recipient provides an email address to the sender for the express purpose of receiving marketing email. The sender then sends an initial email to the recipient that requires a positive action on the part of the recipient (click a link, log into a web page or reply to the email) before the address is added to the sender’s list.

There can be problems with both types of opt-in, but barring fake or typoed email addresses being given to the sender, there is an social contract that the sender will send email to the recipient. I’ll talk about single and double opt-in in later posts.

Implicit permission covers a lot of situations where email is commonly sent in response to a recipient giving the sender and email address. In these cases, though, the recipient may not be aware they are consenting to receive email. This behavior may annoy recipients as well as causing delivery problems for the sender. Common cases of implicit permission include website registration, product purchase and free downloads.

More responsible companies often change implicit opt-in to explicit opt-in. They do this by making it clear to users that they are agreeing to receive email at the point where the user gives the company an email address. Not only is the information about how email addresses will be used in the company’s privacy policy, but there is a clear and conspicuous notice at the point where the user must provide their email address. The recipient knows what the sender will do with the email address and is given the opportunity to express their preferences. If users do agree to receive email, the company will send a message to that recipient with relevant information about how their email address will be used, how often they will receive email and how they can opt-out.

Explicit opt-in is the best practice for building a list, however, there are still companies that successfully use implicit opt-in to build marketing lists. Companies successfully using implicit opt in usually are collecting emails as part of a sales transaction. There is very little incentive for their customers to give them an email address not belonging to the customer.

Outside of purchasers, however, implicit opt-in leaves a company open to getting email addresses that do not actually belong to the person providing the company with the email address. This most often occurs when the sender is providing some service, be it software downloads, music or access to content, in return for a “payment” of a valid email address. In order to protect against users inputting other, valid addresses into the form, the sender must verify that the address actually belongs to their user before sending any sort of marketing email. The easiest way for senders to do this is to send a link to the recipient email. This link can be the download link, or the password to get to restricted content. Because the recipient must be able to receive and act on email, the only addresses the sender has belong to actual users of the site.

In some rare cases, implicit opt-in can be used to build a list that performs well. However, senders must be aware of the risks of annoying their customer base and the recipient ISPs. Mitigating these risks can be done, but it often takes more effort than just using explicit opt-in in the first place.

0 Comments