Thoughts on transactional mail

I mentioned a few weeks ago about a conversation I’d had at MAAWG about transactional email and opened up the conversation to readers here. Mike proposed a definition.

[Transactional mail is] an automated message, sent on a per-user basis, usually as the result of a direct action by the user or strongly associated with the user.

In Mike’s decision were things like sales receipts, opt-in notifications / welcome messages, social networking messages and the like.
Kelly disagreed with Mike and said she looked to the FTC and her current working definition was was mail that the user could not opt-out of.
Margaret pointed out that users should be able to unsubscribe from transactional mail.
Finally Steven posted this definition:

I think transactional email is anything which serves a functional purpose which is useful to the receiver. Shipping information is the classic example, invitations to buy are not.

I think these various comments demonstrate something I’ve been thinking for a while. Transactional email is one of the most interesting use cases of email. The traditional examples of transactional emails are those triggered by an action of the recipient; things like shipping notices and purchase receipts. Then there are transactional emails triggered by the actions of a friend of the recipient but that expect interaction or action by the recipient. Requests to connect through the various social networking sites or forward to a friend links on webpages fit into this category. Email as a command, subscription and unsubscription requests, are also a common category that fits clearly into most people’s definition of transactional email.
Then there is email as a notification. These notifications are often programatically generated and may or may not require action on the part of the recipient. Often, they are generated by monitoring scripts, and only fire when certain thresholds are crossed.
I think one of the important factors of a transactional email is that they are not generated by a person. If a mail is generated by a person then it is a one-to-one email. Of course, like most definitions, there are some exceptions, like some sales receipts are drafted and sent by hand not by an automated system.
What do you think? Are these types of messages transactional messages? Or is there some other term that would encompass this use of email?

Related Posts

Do open rates matter?

Ken Magill over at DirectMag has an article deriding the reliance on ‘open rates’ as a metric for the success (or failure!) of marketing campaigns.

Read More

Language

Over on Deliverability.com Krzysztof posts about discussions going on over on the URIBL list about using “confirmed opt-in” to describe a subscription process versus using “double opt-in” to describe the same subscription process. I do not even need to read the list to know what is being said. This is a disagreement that has been going on since the first usage of “double opt-in” over 10 years ago.
To better explain the vitriol, a little history of the two terms might help.
My personal recollection and experience is that the term “confirmed opt-in” was coined by posters in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email around 1997 or 1998. There was some discussion about marketers / spammers (a lot of the posters did not distinguish between the two) trying to use the term “double opt-in” instead of “confirmed opt-in.” Many posters believed (and many still do) that this was a deliberate attempt by marketers to make the process seem overly burdensome and unworkable.
During the 2003 FTC spam hearings, Rebecca Lieb shared formal definitions for 5 different subscription types including “Confirmed opt-in” and “double opt-in”. These definitions are still up on ClickZ.

Read More

CAN SPAM compliance.

Over on the ET blog, Al posted about how CAN SPAM compliance is not sufficient for you to not be spamming.
It’s a bit different perspective, but very complimentary to my post yesterday about what is and is not spam. He and I have both heard from ISP people about how many requests for whitelisting or unblocking are prefaced with, “We comply with CAN SPAM” and how meaningless that statement really is. Al has a longer discussion of why.

Read More