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

Permission, Part 1

Before I can talk about permission and how a mailer can collect permission from a recipient to send them email I really need to define what I mean by permission as there are multiple definitions used by various players in the market. Permission marketing was a term coined by Seth Godin in his book entitled Permission Marketing.
The underlying concept beneath permission marketing is that all marketing should be “anticipated, personal and relevant.” Others have defined permission marketing as consumers volunteering or requesting to be marketed to.
When I talk about permission in the email marketing context I mean that the recipient understood *at the time they provided the sender with an email address* that they would receive email from that sender as a result.
Let’s look at some of the relevant parts of that definition.

Read More

That's spammer speak

I’ve been hearing stories from other deliverability consultants and some ISP reps about what people are telling them. Some of them are jaw dropping examples of senders who are indistinguishable from spammers. Some of them are just examples of sender ignorance.
“We’re blocked at ISP-A, so we’re just going to stop mailing all our recipients at ISP-A.” Pure spammer speak. The speaker sees no value in any individual recipient, so instead of actually figuring out what about their mail is causing problems, they are going to drop 30% of their list. We talk a lot on this blog about relevancy and user experience. If a sender does not care about their email enough to invest a small amount of time into fixing a problem, then why should recipients care about the mail they are sending?
A better solution then just throwing away 30% of a list is to determine the underlying reasons for  delivery issues, and actually make adjustments to  address collection processes and  user experience. Build a sustainable, long term email marketing program that builds a loyal customer base.
“We have a new system to unsubscribe people immediately, but are concerned about implementing it due to database shrink.” First off, the law says that senders must stop mailing people that ask. Secondly, if people do not want email, they are not going to be an overall asset. They are likely to never purchase from the email, and they are very likely to hit the ‘this is spam’ button and lower the overall delivery rate of a list.
Let people unsubscribe. Users who do not want email from a sender are cruft. They lower the ROI for a list, they lower aggregate performance. Senders should not want unwilling or unhappy recipients on their list.
“We found out a lot of our addresses are at non-existent domains, so we want to correct the typos.” “Correcting” email addresses is an exercise in trying to read recipients minds. I seems intuitive that someone who typed yahooooo.com meant yahoo.com, or that hotmial.com meant hotmail.com, but there is no way to know for sure. There is also the possibility that the user is deliberately mistyping addresses to avoid getting mail from the sender. It could be that the user who mistyped their domain also mistyped their username. In any case, “fixing” the domain could result in a sender sending spam.
Data hygiene is critical, and any sender should be monitoring and checking the information input into their subscription forms. There are even services which offer real time monitoring of the data that is being entered into webforms. Once the data is in the database, though, senders should not arbitrarily change it.

Read More

Recent comments

On my followup EEC post Tamara comments

The eec made a really bad and ugly mistake but you can take my word for it that they have learned from it and that it will not happen again. I am not going to blog about this because I really do believe in the value of the EEC and what it brings to the industry. It’s okay to call out a mistake, but do you really need to destroy an organization that is so worthwile?

Read More