Poor delivery at Gmail but no where else

I’ve mentioned before that I can often tell what ISP is making filter changes by what my calls are about. The last few weeks it’s been Gmail where folks are struggling to get to the inbox. One of the things most clients and potential clients have mentioned is that they’re not having any problems at the other major ISPs.

meter19
Gmail’s filters are probably the most extensive and complex of all the major webmail providers. Their ability to process data and pull signal out of noise, even when it is all noise, is unmatched in the space. But, still, I wasn’t sure why so many companies were struggling just with Gmail.

I’ve been noodling around with this. Could it be that Gmail is doing something very different than other companies? Are they assigning reputation in ways that are different? Do we need to change our strategies to deal with Gmail? Are there different things we should be telling folks?

Then, I realized the big difference between Gmail and the other webmail providers is their FBL. With the other major webmail providers senders can clean their lists just by removing anyone who hits the “this is spam” button. This lets senders be sloppy with acquiring email addresses without too many consequences. Gmail, however, only tells about complaints, they don’t tell you who is making them. Gmail puts the onus on senders to figure out how to send mail to people who want it.

It also means that Gmail is a more realistic view into what subscribers think about a mail stream. It’s easy to forget that everyone who hits this-is-spam actually gave the sender an email address in the first place. The fact that senders can’t just remove them from the mailing program, means the poor reputation builds up over time. Eventually, the number of complaints is going to go over whatever the appropriate threshold level is, and there’s no easy way to reduce it.

I’m not sure what the solution is. I do know that bad reputations at Gmail take some significant work to repair. There’s no short cut, senders have to get rid of subscribers who don’t like the mail. Identifying those subscribers can be a challenge. We’ve had good luck with some clients, but for others the fixes are a significant challenge and tough for their business model to absorb. The good news is that the pain can be short lived and we’ve been able to ramp mail back up eventually.

Overall, Gmail delivery is harder than a lot of other places. Some of that is because senders use FBLs as a crutch to avoid having effective data hygiene on their signups. That works for those ISPs that send FBL messages, but isn’t so effective at Gmail. Maybe there’s some specific hygiene to do just on Gmail addresses. Working on a better solution than just aggressive hygiene and friction during signup.

Related Posts

Sendgrid's open letter to Gmail

Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote an open letter to Gmail about their experiences with the Gmail FBL and how the data from Gmail helped Sendgrid find problem customers.
I know a lot of folks are frustrated with Gmail not returning more than statistics, but there is a place for this type of feedback within a comprehensive compliance desk.

Read More

Incentivizing incites fraud

There are few address acquisition processes that make me cringe as badly as incentivized point of sale collection. Companies have tried many different ways to incentivize address collection at the point of sale. Some offer the benefit to the shopper, like offering discounts if they supply an email address. Some offer the benefits to the employee. Some offer punishments to the employee if they don’t collect addresses from a certain percentage of customers.
All of these types of incentive programs are problematic for email collection.
listshoppingcart
On the shopper side, if they want mail from a retailer, they’ll give an address simply because they want that mail.  In fact, asking for an address without offering any incentive is way more likely to get their real address. If they don’t want mail but there is a financial incentive, they’re likely to give a made up address. Sometimes it will be deliverable, but belong to another person. Sometimes it will be undeliverable. And sometimes it will be a spamtrap. One of my delivery colleagues occasionally shares addresses she’s found in customer lists over on her FB page. It’s mostly fun stuff like “dont@wantyourmail.com” and “notonyour@life.com” and many addresses consisting of NSFW type words.
On the employee side there can also be abuses. Retailers have tried to tie employee evaluations, raises and promotions to the number of email addresses collected. Other retailers will actively demote or fire employees who don’t collect a certain number of addresses. In either case, the progression is the same. Employees know that most customers don’t want the mail, and they feel bad asking. But they’re expected to ask, so they do. But they don’t push, so they don’t get enough addresses. Eventually, to protect their jobs, they start putting in addresses they make up.
Either way, incentivizing point of sale collection of information leads to fraud. In a case I read about in the NY Times, it can lead to fraud much more serious than a little spam. In fact, Wells Fargo employees committed bank fraud because of the incentives related to selling additional banking products at the teller.

Read More

Ongoing subscription form abuse

Last week Spamhaus posted information on the ongoing subscription attacks. They provided a more information about them that was not make public previously, including some information about the volume of mail some targets received.
Today SendGrid also blogged about this, going into a little more detail about why senders should care about this. They also provided a number of suggestions for how to mitigate the risk of being part of an attack.
Many abstract images on the theme of computers, Internet and high technology.
There are a couple of things I think it’s important for folks to realize.

Read More