5 Simple Tricks to Reach the Inbox

I saw a post over on LinkedIn today. It was from an ESP, talking about their simple tips and tricks for getting into the inbox. The laughable bit was half the “tricks” had nothing to do with getting to the inbox, but rather were about enticing people to open the mail once it’s gotten to the inbox.
There are no “tricks” to getting to the inbox. There used to be some tricks. But the ISPs figured them out and protect against them.

Complaint lowering tricks

For instance, you could create hundreds or thousand of free accounts and pad your mailing list with them. Voilà! Low complaint rates. Inbox Forever!
ISPs figured that out and it stopped working.
Then you’d create hundreds or thousands of free accounts, log into them and move mail from the spam folder to the inbox. Voilà! Users want our mail! Inbox Forever!
ISPs figured that out, and even sued a couple people for doing it.

 Bounce lowering tricks

One of the newer tricks to get to the inbox is the use of list cleaning or list hygiene services. These sell well, because they sound like they do something. ISPs are measuring bounces and non-existent addresses, so remove bouncing addresses and Voilà! Inbox Forever!
These services also claim to filter spamtraps. I actually got a real answer out of one of the companies about how many traps they had. The answer? Less than a hundred. Even worse, a client recently hired one of these companies to clean their list to get rid of a Spamhaus listing. The company identified ‘an inordinate number’ of Spamhaus spamtraps. Spamhaus tells me they saw zero difference in spamtrap hits before and after the cleaning.

What really works?

There is no trick to getting to the inbox. Theres’s no 5 steps or 5 tricks or 2 magic words you can use to get mail to the inbox. Like the magician’s tricks, they’re illusions. The folks selling you these tricks are hiding reality to make you see what you want to see. But the ISPs can see through the illusions and aren’t fooled.
Getting mail to the inbox means sending mail your recipients want and are delighted to receive. There’s no trick to this. There’s a lot of work to understand your audience, your product, your product lifecycle and your statistics. There’s work in creating copy and messages that resonate with your audience. There’s work in collecting permission from recipients. Email marketing is work and it’s skilled work.
Short circuit any of these steps and your mail may or may not make it to the inbox. Sometimes, tricks can get mail to the inbox for the short term. But those tricks let the ISPs identify you. Once they can identify you, they can block you.
 

Are you blocking yourself?
Upcoming events for Laura

Related Posts

Thoughts on Data Hygiene

One of the big deliverability vs. marketing arguments has to do with data hygiene and dropping inactive users. Marketers hate that deliverability people tell them to let subscribers go after a long time of no activity from the subscriber.

Read More

Data hygiene and bouncing zombies

There are a number of folks who tell me there can be no zombie addresses on their lists, they aggressively remove any address that bounces. The problem is that zombie addresses don’t bounce, at least not always. And even when ISPs say they have a policy to bounce email after a certain period of time with no access, that’s not always put into practice.
How do I know that ISPs don’t always deactivate addresses on the schedules they publish? Because I have seen addresses not be deactivated.
I have addresses in a lot of places that I go for long periods of time not checking. It’s rare that they’re taken from me or reject mail – most of the time they’re special test addresses I use when diagnosing issues. This post is based on my experiences with those addresses and how abandoned addresses are treated at some ISPs.
For Gmail I have two examples of addresses not being deactivated.
In July 2011, we set up a test address to look at how Gmail was handling authentication. We sent a matrix of different test emails to it, with valid and invalid SPF and DKIM signatures. We pulled the data from the account. I don’t know for certain when the last time I logged in, but it was August or September of last year. So we have an address that has been dormant since September 2011.
I just sent mail to the account and google happily accepted it.
Mar  2 07:03:22 misc postfix/smtp[11770]: 11CA12DED3: to=<wttwtestacct@gmail.com>, relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[74.125.127.27]:25, delay=1.8, delays=0.25/0.02/0.56/0.93, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1330700602 x8si8608852pbi.66)
I have another google account (apparently) that my records show I set up sometime in 2010. The login info was saved October 2010. I don’t know when the last time I logged in was, but given I’d forgotten the existence of the account it’s a good bet that it has been more than a year. That account is also accepting mail as of today.
Mar  2 07:06:25 misc postfix/smtp[11836]: 8D90C2DED3: to=<phphendrie@gmail.com>, relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[74.125.127.27]:25, delay=1.6, delays=0.26/0.02/0.68/0.66, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 OK 1330700785 a8si4075740icw.96)
For Hotmail I also have quite a bit of history and information. I signed up for my first Hotmail account in 1997. That was an account I used the address to post to usenet, but I didn’t actually use it for mail. I’d check it occasionally (usually when someone said in the newsgroup that they were going to email me) but it wasn’t an address I used regularly. As I moved from posting regularly in usenet, I started checking that account even less.
For a while, if I went more than 6 months checking my Hotmail account they would make me “re-claim” it. What would happen when I’d log in is I’d get a message along the lines of “well, we disabled this account due to inactivity, do you want it back?” I’d say yes, have to go through the setup process again and it would be my account. Mail was deleted during the disabling, and I am guessing they rejected anything new going to that account. I went through this dance for 4 or 5 years. I even had my calendar set to remind me to login every 6 months or so. There was some sentimental value to the address that kept me logging in. I have that same username at every major free ISP: Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo and AOL, so it’s “my” address.
About 6 or 7 years ago, that behavior changed. I stopped getting the request to reclaim my account. Instead I could just log in. I’d still have mail (mostly spam as the address is on *lots* of lists and millions CDs). I still check it irregularly. I don’t have any idea when the last time I checked it was, but I think it’s been since at least November and probably longer back than that. Hotmail is still accepting mail for that address as well.
It’s anecdotal evidence, at best, but it ‘s the type of evidence that is acceptable even when it’s anecdotal. There are some addresses that are abandoned for long periods of time at the free mailbox providers and they’re are not all automatically pulled from the ranks of active addresses.
What does this mean for senders? It means that data hygiene has to go beyond just removing addresses that bounce. ISPs are not disabling addresses consistently enough for marketers to be able to trust that all addresses on their list are active just because they are accepting email.
This is the root of the recommendation to put in a hygiene program, this is why senders need to look at who is actually engaged with their brand and make some hard decisions about shooting zombies in the head.

Read More

Dueling data

One of the things I miss about being in science is the regular discussions (sometimes heated) about data and experimental results. To be fair, I get some of that when talking about email stuff with Steve. We each have some strong view points and aren’t afraid to share them with each other and with other people. In fact, one of the things we hear most when meeting folks for the first time is, “I love it when you two disagree with each other on that mailing list!” Both of us have engineering and science backgrounds, so we can argue in that vein.
ThatsFunny
One of the challenges of seemingly contradictory data is figuring out why it seems to disagree. Of course, in science the first step is always to look at your experimental design and data collection. Did I do the experiment right? (Do it again. Always do it again.) Did I record the data correctly? Is the design right? So what did I do differently from what you did? For instance, at one of my labs we discovered that mixing a reagent in plastic tubes created a different outcome from mixing the reagent in glass vials. So many variables that you don’t even think of being variables that affect the outcome of an experiment.

Read More