Justin Coffey commented on my check your assumptions post pointing out his data on opens related to ISPs. He says:
I can say that users at webmail are easily as likely to click on a message that they have opened than users at pay-for ISPs.
Who else collects data on opens per ISP? And Monkeys, I’m looking at you, I know you have this data.
I recently saw a question from an ESP rep asking if anyone had a personal contact at a particular ISP. The problem was that they had a rejection from the ISP saying: 571 5.7.1 too many recipients this session. The ESP was looking for someone at the ISP in order to ask what the problem was.
This is exactly the kind of behaviour that drives ISPs bonkers about senders. The ISP has sent a perfectly understandable rejection: “5.7.1: too many recipients this session.” And instead of spending some time and energy on the sender side troubleshooting, instead of spending some of their own money to work out what’s going on, they fall back on asking the ISPs to explain what they should do differently.
What, exactly, should you do differently? Stop sending so many recipients in a single session. This is not rocket science. The ISP tells you exactly what you need to do differently, and your first reaction is to attempt to mail postmaster@ the ISP and then, when that bounces, your next step is to look for a personal contact?
No. No. No.
Look, connections and addresses per connections is one of the absolute easiest things to troubleshoot. Fire up a shell, telnet to port 25 on the recipient server, and do a hand SMTP session, count the number of receipts. Sure, in some corporate situations it can be a PITA to do, sometimes you’re going to need to get it done from a particular IP which may be an interface on an appliance and doesn’t have telnet or whatever. But, y’know what? That Is Your Job. If your company isn’t able to do it, well, please tell me so I can stop recommending that as an ESP. Companies have to be able to test and troubleshoot their own networks.
Senders have been begging ISPs for years “just tell us what you want and we’ll bother you less.” In this case the ISP was extremely clear about what they want: they want fewer recipients per connection. But the ESP delivery person is still looking for a contact so they can talk to the ISP to understand it better.
This is why the ISPs get so annoyed with senders. They’re tired of having to do the sender’s job.
A question came up on a mailing list about how long it typically took to resolve a spam block at an ISP. I don’t think that question actually has a single answer, as each ISP has their own, special, process.
ISPA takes 5 minutes. You fill out a form, it runs through their automated system and you’re usually delisted.
ISPB asks a lot of questions in their form, so it takes about 15 minutes to collect all the data they want and 10 minutes to fill out their form. Then, using very, very short words you keep repeating what you need to the tier 1 person who initially responded. That person eventually figures out they can’t blow you off and throws your request to tier 2, who handles it immediately.
ISPC has a different, somewhat long form. Again, you spend time collecting all the data and then fill out the somewhat obscure form. You get a response, but it’s a boilerplate totally unrelated to the initial request, so you keep answering until you find a tier 1 rep who can read and do what you initially asked.
ISPD has a form that takes about 2 minutes to fill out. Unfortunately, it goes to an outsourced postmaster team in the Far East and response times are ranging from days to months right now.
ISPE has an email address and if you catch them on a good day, they’re very helpful. Sometimes there’s no response, though.
ISPF has a troubleshooting page and accept requests to fix things, but never respond in any visible manner.
ISPG they tells you to talk to Spamfiltering Company H.
Spamfiltering company H answers their email in a prompt and friendly manner. OK, sometimes the answers are just “wow, your client/customer/IP range is sending lots of spam,” but hey, it’s an answer.
Spamfiltering company I is a useless bag of protoplasm and don’t even answer the email address they give you on their webpages. In a fit of fairness, I have heard they will occasionally respond, but usually that response is to tell you to go pay some apparently unrelated company a bribe to get delisted.
Spamfiltering company J doesn’t have a lot of ways to contact them, but have a lot of folks that participate in various semi-public arenas so if you’re even slightly part of the community, you can email them and they’re very helpful.
Spamfiltering company K is totally useless, but will tell you to have recipients whitelist you.
There has been an lot written about open rates in the past, but there are two posts that stand out to me. One was the EEC’s post on renaming open rate to render rate and Mark Brownlow’s excellent post on what open rate does and does not measure. I’ve also weighed in on the subject. The issue is still very confused.
If asked, most people will tell you that open rate is the number of emails that were opened by the recipient. The problem is that this isn’t actually true. Open rate is measured by the number of people that display an image in an email. Traditionally this has been a uniquely tagged 1×1 pixel, until some filters and mail clients stopped displaying 1×1 pixels. More recently, every image in an email is tagged, so opening one image would record as an open.
So open rate doesn’t actually tell a sender how many people opened and read an email. It really only records that an image in a particular email is loaded. It does not record when an email is opened. Some people don’t load images by default. Some people don’t load images at all, even when they open and actively read the text portion of the email.
Clearly, there are some uses for open rates. It can give a useful metric when comparing different forms of the same email (A/B testing) and when looking at user engagement over time. However, we have also recently seen that open rate is not predictive for click through rate.