It would be nice…

It’d be nice to have a tool to uncover the zombie email addys, but until then, read this from @wise_laura: http://bit.ly/jxjZ9M Kelly Lorenz

There’s currently not a programmatic way to make those determinations, but this is where the relationship between senders and receivers comes in. All you have to do is ask recipients what they want. I know, I know, most marketers have a low opinion of the ability or desire of their recipients to respond to an email. And there are some actual challenges to getting a recipient’s attention when they’ve tuned out a particular sender or type of email.
Separating out zombie addresses from real addresses is a challenge. But it’s part of maintaining a healthy email marketing program. When I’m working with clients who are mailing old lists we first talk about their product and their goals. Then we look at what information they have for recipients. My goal is to separate out those addresses we know are good from those we know are bad from those we don’t know. It’s the ones in the don’t know category that we focus on.
I don’t recommend just deleting the addresses that are non-responsive. One of the reasons is that I read mail with images off by default and so I often look like one of those non-responsive recipients even when I’m actively reading and receiving mail. Instead, I like to look at what other data the customer has about a recipient to help classify them. Of course, there are often a subset of users we cannot identify if they’re zombies or not. For these addresses we plan a re-engagement campaign.
Clients who have gone through this process have seen an improvement in delivery and an improvement in responses and ROI.
Until and unless ISPs start rejecting mail for zombie accounts it’s the best chance senders have to separate the barely there from the not there at all.

Spam works
Another kind of email breach

Related Posts

Zombie email: Part 1

Zombie email addresses: those email addresses that never really die, eat your brains and destroy your email delivery. To understand zombie addresses and why they’re just now becoming a problem, we really need to understand some of the history of email addresses.
In the early days of the net, people got an email address usually associated directly with their access to the Internet. Many of them ended with .edu or .gov. I even had one that ended in .BITNET for a while. The first ISPs followed this convention. Users signed up for an account at a local dialup and were assigned an email address, and that was their email address. It wasn’t until the late 1990’s where there was widespread access to multiple email addresses.
What this means is that when people left a job, or canceled their Internet access their email address went away. Addresses that were abandoned would, after a short period of time, start bouncing back with user unknown, giving everyone the opportunity to stop mailing that account.
Even with the advent of multiple addresses for a single account and the easy availability of free addresses from places like Hotmail addresses that had been abandoned would still bounce off a list. Why? Because accounts had limited storage. My first dialup account had, I think, 10MB of space. It may have been as much as 20MB, but it wasn’t very much. Accounts receiving a lot of mail that weren’t checked frequently would fill up and start bouncing mail. Senders would be able to remove abandoned accounts because they were full.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about two things happened in the early 2000’s that changed email and led to the rise of zombie email.
Zombie Email: Part 2
Zombie Email: Part 3
Zombie Apocalypse

Read More

Don't take my subscribers away!

Tom Sather has a good summary of the problems with inactive email addresses and why data hygiene is critical to maintain high deliverability. These recommendations are some of the most difficult to convince people to implement.
Some of my clients even show me numbers that show that a recipient that hadn’t opened or read and email in 18 months, suddenly made a multi-hundred dollar purchase. Another client had clear numbers that showed even recipients that didn’t open for an entire year were responsible for 10% of revenue.
They tell me I can’t expect them to let their customers go. These are significant amounts of money and they won’t let any potential revenue go without a fight.
I understand this, I really do. The bottom line numbers do make it tough to argue that inactive subscribers should be removed. Particularly when the best we can offer is vague statements about how delivery may be affected by sending mail to unengaged users.
I don’t think many senders realize that when they talk about unengaged users they are actually talking about two distinct groups of recipients.
The first group is that group of users that actively receive email, but who aren’t opening or reading emails from particular senders. This could be because of their personal filters, or because the mail is going to the bulk folder or even simply because they don’t load images by default. This is the pool that most senders think of when they’re arguing against removing unengaged users.
The second group is that group of users that never logs in ever. They have abandoned the email address and never check it. I wrote a series of posts on Zombie Emails (Part 1, 2, 3) last September, finishing with suggestions on how to fight zombie email addresses.
Unlike senders ISPs can trivially separate the abandoned accounts from the recipients who just don’t load images. Sending to a significant percentage of zombie accounts makes you look like a spammer. Not just because spammers send mail to really old address lists, but a number of spammers pad their lists with zombie accounts in order to hide their complaint rates. The ISPs caught onto this trick pretty quickly and also discovered this was a good metric to use as part of their filtering.
I know it’s difficult to face the end of any relationship. But an email subscription isn’t forever and if you try to make it forever then you may face delivery problems with your new subscribers.

Read More

Brand engagement in social media

Adobe has a good post up about consumer reaction and interaction with brands in social media like Twitter and Facebook.

Read More