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Of course, my gut feeling that these numbers are old and out of date and probably no longer accurate was crushed last week.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

April 2015: The Month in Email

We started the month with some conversations about best practices, both generally looking at the sort of best practices people follow (or don’t) as well as some specific practices we wanted to look at in more depth. Three for this month:

Read More

Email verification services

Just yesterday a group of delivery folks were discussing email verification services over IRC. We were talking about the pros and cons, when we’d suggest using them, when we wouldn’t, which ones we’ve worked with and what our experiences have been. I’ve been contemplating writing up some of my thoughts about verification services but it’s a post I wanted to spend some time on to really address the good parts and the bad parts of verification services.
Today, Spamhaus beat me to the punch and posted a long article on how they view email verification services. (I know that some Spamhaus folks are part of that IRC channel, but I don’t think anyone was around for the discussion we had yesterday.)
It’s well worth a read for anyone who wants some insight into how email verification is viewed by Spamhaus. Their viewpoints are pretty consistent with what I’ve heard from various ISP representatives as well.
In terms of my own thoughts on verification services, I think it’s important to remember that the bulk of the verification services only verify that an address is deliverable. The services do not verify that the address belongs to the person who input it into a form. The services do not verify that an address matches a purchased profile. The services do not verify that the recipient wants email from the senders.
Some of the services claim they remove spamtraps, but their knowledge of spamtraps is limited. Yes, stick around this industry long enough and you’ll identify different spamtraps, and even spamtrap domains. I could probably rattle off a few dozen traps if pressed, but that’s not going to be enough to protect any sender from significant problems.
Some services can be used for real time verification, and that is a place where I think verification can be useful. But I also know there are a number of creative ways to do verification that also check things like permission and data validity.
From an ESP perspective, verification services remove bounces. This means that ESPs have less data to apply to compliance decisions. Bounce rate, particularly for new lists, tells the ESP a lot about the health of the mailing list. Without that, they are mostly relying on complaint data to determine if a customer is following the AUP.
Spamhaus talks about what practices verification services should adopt in order to be above board. They mention actions like clearly identifying their IPs and domains, not switching IPs to avoid blocks and not using dozens or hundreds of IPs. I fully support these recommendations.
Email verification services do provide some benefit to some senders. I can’t help feeling, though, that their main benefit is simply lowering bounce rates and not actually improving the quality of their customers’ signup processes.

Read More

Mythbusting deliverability and engagement

Yesterday I published an article talking about an engagement webinar hosted by the EEC and DMA. I made a couple predictions about what would be said.

Read More