Failed delivery of permission based email

A few weeks ago, ReturnPath published a study showing that 20% of permission based email was blocked. I previously discussed the definition of permission based email and that not all the mail described as permission based is actually sent with the permission of the recipient. However, I only consider this a small fraction of the mail RP is measuring, somewhere in the 3 – 5% range. What happens with the other 17 – 15% of that mail? Why is it being blocked?
There are 3 primary things I see that cause asked for and wanted email to be blocked.

  • technical issues
  • content
  • expectation disconnect leading to user complaints

The technical issues range from actual RFC violating practices to minor nits that makes mail look more like spam than legit mail. The software vendors are getting better and I find less and less problems with the header content in emails. The one exception is some of the websites using Java to generate mail based on user activity. Some of the Java mail classes generate very poor headers which can decrease delivery.
Looking beyond the headers, there are still problems in the body of the email. Base64 encoding plain text, either in the subject line or in the body of the email, has been used by spammers to avoid filtering. Some legitimate mailers use software that base64 encodes plain text email, causing delivery problems. Invalid HTML is also a common mistake that can drastically hurt delivery.
Once senders have confirmed they’re sending correctly formatted, non-RFC violating email, the next big thing to look at is the content of the email. I’m not talking about the number of exclamation points in the subject line, or the word “free” or “unsubscribe” or content like that. I’m talking about more fundamental content. Is the sender selling loans, stocks or male enhancement products? If so, they are going to have delivery issues no matter how good their opt-in process is. Advertising heavily spammed or phished domains, like links to Amazon.com or eBay.com can also decrease delivery of wanted email. Some companies hire lots of different senders to advertise their domain. If they hire LegitMailer.com and they also hire spammers, LegitMailer.com will often see delivery problems based on the content of their mail being found in spam.
When this happens there isn’t much that the sender can do other than avoid the problematic content. I have one client who sends opt-in mail but will occasionally see their mail bulk foldered at major ISPs. Typically this is a one day event, and every time I’ve asked the ISPs they have always blamed the content. The companies my customer is recommending in their mail are also being mentioned in spam and so my customer’s delivery suffers.
Finally, there is sometimes a disconnect between what the recipient thought they were opting into and what the sender actually sends. This can lower a sender’s reputation and delivery. The fixes for this are not as simple as making a few technical fixes or changing the content of the email. This is a longer process and requires more analysis of recipients, what they want and how the sender can meet the recipient’s needs.

Related Posts

ReturnPath customers?

Someone posted the following question about ReturnPath in the comments:

Read More

Permission Based Emails? Are you sure?

Yesterday I wrote about the ReturnPath study showing 21% of permission based email does not make it to the inbox. There are a number of reasons I can think of for this result, but I think one of the major ones is that not all the mail they are monitoring is permission based. I have no doubt that all of the RP customers say that the mail they’re sending is permission based, I also have no doubt that not all of the mail is.
Everyone who sends mail sends permission based email. Really! Just ask them!
In 10 years of professionally working with senders I have yet to find a marketer that says anything other than all their email is permission based. Every email marketer, from those who buy email addresses to those who do fully confirmed verified opt-in with a cherry on top will claim all their email is permission based. And some of the mailers I’ve worked with in the past have been listed on ROKSO. None of these mailers will ever admit that they are not sending permission based email.
Going back to ReturnPath’s data we don’t really know what permission based email means in this context and so we don’t know if the mail is legitimately or illegitimately blocked. My guess is that some significant percentage of the 20% of email to the probe accounts that doesn’t make it to the inbox is missing because the sender does not have clear recipient permission.
When even spammers describe their email as permission based email marketing, what value does the term have?

Read More

Going out of business email strategies

Chad White of Smith-Harmon posted a report today on shutting down email marketing programs when going out of business. He looks in detail at how a number of companies handled their email marketing during the going-out-of-business process. There is a very solid mix of examples of how companies handle things. Some companies do things very badly, like never mention over email that they’re going out of business or neglect to follow CAN SPAM regulations. Others used their list as a communications tool that survived the dissolution of the parent company.
The full report is well worth a read, but the take home messages are clear.

Read More