Yes, Virginia, there is list churn

Yesterday I talked about how data collection, management, and maintenance play a crucial role in deliverability.  I mentioned, briefly, the idea that bad data can accumulate on a list that isn’t well managed. Today I’d like to dig into that a little more and talk about the non-permanence of email addresses.
A common statistic used to describe list churn is that 30% of addresses become invalid in a year.  This was research done by Return Path back in the early 2000’s. The actual research report is hard to find, but I found a couple articles and press releases discussing the info.

A new study, to be unveiled next week at The 85th Annual Direct Marketing Association conference, indicates that email addresses are changing at the rate of 31% annually, driven by ISP switching, job changes and consumer efforts to avoid SPAM.
The email survey, conducted by independent, third-party research firm NFO WorldGroup, concluded that, consequently, the majority of consumers lose touch with personal and professional contacts and with preferred websites. […] The survey, conducted in August 2002, updates a similar study by Return Path and NFO WorldGroup from September 2000, which identified a 32% annual rate of email address churn. The results are based on responses from 1,015 consumers from NFO WorldGroup’s online panel of U.S. email users over the age of 18. The panel is representative of U.S. online households.  ISP Switching and SPAM Continue to Drive Email Address Changes

While I think the address change rates are probably lower now, list churn still exists.
In 2002, NFO reported users changed personal email addresses for a number of reasons.

  • 50% changed due to an ISP switch
  • 16% changed due to spam
  • 12% changed due to a move
  • 8% changed due to a “more attractive” email address.

Work users also changed addresses, and for many of the same reasons.

  • 41% changed due to new jobs
  • 18% changed due to an ISP change
  • 8% changed due to a residential move
  • 6% change due to a name change (divorce or marriage)

Given the changes in free webmail providers since 2002, I expect address changes due to ISP switching or moving is less common than it was. But other reasons that users cited still exist, including spam levels, new jobs and name changes.
Of course, my gut feeling that these numbers are old and out of date and probably no longer accurate was crushed last week. The LA Times published an article about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email campaigns. After her run for president in 2007, her email address database had approximately 2.5 million records. According to the article, less than 100,000 of the addresses are still valid. That’s more than 30% attrition every year.
List churn is real. While we may not know what the exact percentage of churn is, we know it happens. I expect that list churn, like most things in deliverability, is related to the actual recipient group. Some lists, like Secretary Clinton’s list, may have a very high churn rate. Other lists focused on different demographics might have a much lower churn rate.
While the LA Times article mentioned these addresses bounced (“an inbox clogged with bounce-back messages”) not all churn is so visible. There’s also “stealth” churn, where addresses are abandoned by their users but still accept mail.
What can you do? Mostly I recommend first wrapping your head around the idea that churn exists. Once you really believe churn is real then you can address how to fix it in your specific environment.
Key things to remember when planning a data management plan:

  • Email addresses are not permanent.
  • Subscriber data degrades if you don’t actively manage it.
  • Deliverability depends on data quality.
  • Maintaining data is easier than trying to clean data.
  • Using list cleaning services will remove hard bounces, but won’t address “stealth” churn, which can still affect deliverability.

If there’s anything my work with clients has taught me is that the more creative and flexible you can be in regards to list management, the more effective your overall email marketing program can be.

Related Posts

June 2015: the Month in Email

Happy July! We are back from another wonderful M3AAWG conference and enjoyed seeing many of you in Dublin. It’s always so great for us to connect with our friends, colleagues, and readers in person. I took a few notes on Michel van Eeten’s keynote on botnets, and congratulated our friend Rodney Joffe on winning the prestigious Mary Litynski Award.
In anti-spam news, June brought announcements of three ISP-initiated CAN-SPAM cases, as well as a significant fine leveled by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) against Porter Airlines. In other legal news, a UK case against Spamhaus has been settled, which continues the precedent we’ve observed that documenting a company’s practice of sending unsolicited email does not constitute libel.
In industry news, AOL started using Sender Score Certification, and Yahoo announced (and then implemented) a change to how they handle their Complaint Feedback Loop (CFL). Anyone have anything to report on how that’s working? We also noted that Google has discontinued the Google Apps for ISPs program, so we expect we might see some migration challenges along the way. I wrote a bit about some trends I’m seeing in how email programs are starting to use filtering technologies for email organization as well as fighting spam.
Steve, Josh and I all contributed some “best practices” posts this month on both technical issues and program management issues. Steve reminded us that what might seem like a universal celebration might not be a happy time for everyone, and marketers should consider more thoughtful strategies to respect that. I wrote a bit about privacy protection (and pointed to Al Iverson’s post on the topic), and Josh wrote about when senders should include a physical address, what PTR (or Reverse DNS) records are and how to use them, testing your opt-out process (do it regularly!), and advice on how to use images when many recipients view email with images blocked.

Read More

A series of tubes

ASeriesofTubes_thumb
The Internet and pundits had a field day with Senator Stevens, when he explained the Internet was a series of tubes.
I always interpreted his statement as coming from someone who demanded an engineer tell him why his mail was delayed. The engineer used the “tube” metaphor to explain network congestion and packets and TCP, and when the Senator tried to forward on the information he got it a little wrong. I do credit the Senator with trying to understand how the Internet works, even if he got it somewhat wrong. This knowledge, or lack there of, drove his policy positions on the issue of Net Neutrality.
In the coming years, I believe we’re going to be seeing more regulations around the net, both for individuals and for corporations. These regulations can make things better, or they can make things worse. I believe it’s extremely important that our elected officials have a working understanding of the Internet in order to make sensible policy. This understanding doesn’t have to be in their own head, they can hire smart people to answer their questions and explain the implications of policy.
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks it is important for our elected officials to have a working knowledge of technology. Paul Schreiber put up a blog post comparing the website technology used by the current Presidential candidates. Do I really expect the candidate to be involved in decisions like what domain registrar or SSL certificate provider to use? No. But I do expect them to hire people who can create and build technology that is within current best practices.

Read More

March 2015: The month in email

Happy March! We started the month with some more movement around CASL enforcement from our spam-fighting friends to the north. We noted a $1.1 million fine levied against Compu-Finder for CASL violations, as well as a $48,000 fine to Plentyoffish Media for failing to provide unsubscribe links. We noted a few interesting things: the fines are not being imposed at the maximum limits, violations are not just on B2C marketing, but also on B2B senders, and finally, that it really just makes sense — both from a delivery perspective and a financial perspective — to comply with the very reasonable best practices outlined in CASL.

Read More