Tag Archive for 'Relevancy'

Spam in the workplace

In comments on my last post Lux says:

It seems to me that in regard to PR people sending press releases to a professional journalist, you’ve got a very specific use case with slightly different rules of engagement from the norm.

I think that is a valid point and that some people, because of their job, will receive mail they do not want or have not asked for. I also think that the business has the ability to tell the employee that they cannot block the mail.

That being said, I think senders have an obligation to determine who is the right target for their unsolicited email. Just randomly sending offers to sell stock photos to the editor at wired might be the right thing to do, but there might also be a better target. By sending unsolicited email you are asking someone for their time, and you should be respectful of that time. Respecting the recipients time may mean you send out less volume in the long run, and may be more work for you as a sender, but that is just a cost of doing business.

This all goes back to my contention that relevancy is the key to good success from email.

0 Comments

The key to inbox delivery: make your email relevant.

Following on from previous posts here, here and here, JD Falk discusses ways to get your email into the inbox.

Tactics that will actually improve your deliverability, yet have no bearing on what the ISP staff thinks about you:

  • Sending mail that your recipients actually want
  • Keeping your list clean (such that you don’t send unwanted mail)
  • Using good data sources (such that you don’t send unwanted mail)
  • Keeping a squeaky clean infrastructure (such that you don’t send unwanted mail)
  • Getting on Sender Score Certified (which requires not sending unwanted mail)

All in all, the best way to get mail into the inbox is to send mail your recipients want. Make it relevant to what they want and it will get delivered.

Hat tip: Matt

0 Comments

Relevancy, yet again

Email Insider has another post discussing how important relevancy is to getting email delivered.

1 Comment

More on Relevancy

Al Iverson comments on information from Craig Spiezel at the Exacttarget customer conference this week. Craig confirms that MSN/Hotmail is also looking at user engagement, opens and moving mail out of the spam folder as part of their delivery metrics.

Ultimately, engagement is the key to mitigating delivery issues when sending to Hotmail.

  • Stop mailing to subscribers that never open or click on your email messages.
  • Don’t reactivate old, bounced addresses just to see if they’ll go through…today. (A few might, but most won’t, and Hotmail will notice.)
  • Stay true to permission. Don’t buy lists, stick to clear opt-in (not opt-out). Don’t bury the “we’ll send you email” notice in a privacy policy or legal notice.

I expect that more ISPs than AOL and MSN/Hotmail are looking at recipient engagement or are investigating how to measure it and incorporate it into their delivery decision process. It does reinforce my earlier blog post about relevancy and how important it is for delivery.

Hat tip: Mark

0 Comments

Relevance: don’t underestimate it, measure it.

Ken Magill has an article today about a new service from e-Dialog called the Relevancy Trajectory. This product

identifies the specific factors that enable you to customize and time messages properly, encourage interactivity, and maintain flexibility in your e-mail campaigns. The six factors are:

  • Segmentation
  • Lifecycle management
  • Triggers
  • Personalization
  • Interactivity
  • Testing and measurement

Relevancy should be the new buzzword in email marketing. As ISPs have gotten better at blocking spam and identifying non-spam email, they are also getting better at measuring their users reactions to email. Once they measure the reactions, they can then put those reactions to the email into context and make decisions about the likelyhood that the email is wanted by their users.

In Spring of 2006, a representative of a very large consumer ISP reported at MAAWG that one of the measurements they were making when looking at classification of email was who the mailers were sending email to. By examining the population of recipients, they were able to make some very educated judgements about the quality of the sender’s email list.

What does this have to do with relevancy? While recently attempting to troubleshoot a client’s problem with this very same ISP the person I was speaking with told me that the recipients didn’t seem very interested in the email. Mail that was put into the bulk folder was not being marked as not-spam in any significant number. This led the ISP to judge that the email was not wanted and could be safely filtered into the bulk folder.

I took a look at the client’s program. They are not your standard bulk mailer, they are a petition and advocacy site. The emails they send out are to people who have signed petitions on their site in the past, asking them to sign new petitions. Because they send mail irregularly, recipients do not know when to expect the mail and do not look in the bulk folder to recover it. My client is always asking for something from users, but giving them very little feedback on what happens after the user takes action.

Based on my recommendations my client is now looking at sending a scheduled weekly email. This email will be short, just a couple paragraphs. It will contain a summary of the action emails sent in the past week, and a reminder for the user to check the bulk folder if they have not received the email. Additionally, it will provide feedback to the user on how effective their efforts have been at effecting change.

By making the email expected and engaging the user, the client and I expect that not only will their delivery be improved, but their users will be eager to participate in future petitions.

Email recipients are not mindless automatons, they are people. In order to motivate people to respond to an email by making a purchase, signing a petition, adding the sender to their address book or clicking ‘this is not spam’ the email must be relevant and expected. Senders must never forget that recipients are real and have their own needs and agendas.

0 Comments