Email related predictions for 2010

As my recent series of posts has indicated, I am seeing a lot of future changes in the email industry.

What do I think we can look forward to in email in 2010?

Authentication

In the realm of real authentication, the protocol most are using is is DKIM. While people will probably continue to publish SPF records (and Microsoft will continue to cling to the hope it becomes widespread) its relevance will continue to decrease. As less people pay attention to SPF, records may be unmaintained and become stale further decreasing their use and relevance.

In contrast to SPF, DKIM will continue rolling out. More senders (both the ESPs and the ISPs) will be signing outgoing mail with DKIM. More receivers will be checking DKIM signatures and  monitoring domain reputation. I think we’re on the cusp of critical mass and signing will become less of a bonus and more of a given. Right now, it seems that senders who are signing with DKIM are seeing a bit of a reputation bump just because they’re signing. I expect this positive effect will wane, but for now anyone who is signing seems to be seeing improved delivery.

Domain based reputation

Domain based reputation is on the upswing and I see that continuing through 2010. I don’t, however, see domain based reputation replacing or even becoming more important than IP based reputation. A few people have predicted that domain reputation will replace IP reputation, and they’re wrong. Domain based reputation will augment but not replace IP based reputation. It is easy and efficient to check the reputation of a connecting IP address and a receiver can make a preliminary delivery decision without having to accept the full email.

Where domain based reputation will have the biggest effect is for IP addresses with mixed mail streams or IP addresses with no reputation. Small senders often have to share IP addresses with other senders and domain based reputation will allow them to establish their own reputation separately from the reputation of other senders using the same IP. The other real bonus will be when moving mail from one IP to another. Domain based reputation may decrease the time required to warmup an IP address.

Engagement

The buzzword for 2010 is engagement. ISPs will be measuring engagement and making delivery decisions based on how much their users want particular email. In the past ISPs have used measurements like complaint rates and bounce rates to measure how wanted email is. These numbers correlate with how wanted mail is, but are relatively easy for senders to game. In 2010, ISPs are going to actually start filtering based on how wanted mail is. “Wanted” mail will no longer be measured using the proxy measurements, as those have proven to be easy to game. Instead, ISPs will directly measure how much recipients want a particular mail. These changes will force senders to stop sending mail that does not generate complaints and start sending mails that recipients are eager to receive.

Social Networking

I don’t see social networking replacing email marketing at any time. I do see, though, email marketing giving recipients opportunities to share information with social networks. Smart senders will provide easy links so that recipients can share information with their social networks. When marketers do well, they’ll have happy recipients who want to share the information. When marketers do poorly, however, they will have to deal with unhappy recipients. It only takes a few people publicizing a company failure to generate negative buzz.

Conclusion

In 2010 email marketing is going to get much more challenging for everyone. Recipients, and their ISPs, are expecting more and better things from email marketing. Senders who are currently meeting expectations may struggle to meet those increasing standards within their current marketing frameworks. Successful marketers will be able to make the switch from sending mail that doesn’t annoy customers to sending mail that recipients truly want. On the ESP side, they may find they had to provide more guidance and consulting support for customers. They may also need to change some policies and improve their problem detection systems.

This is the year of engagement, and senders can’t fake engagement the way they can other metrics. Marginal senders will struggle to adapt to the new conditions. Better senders will need to change some things, but will improve their marketing to meet the new standards. Overall, though, the changes will drive all senders to really send mail people want. This leads to more engaged recipients. More engaged recipients leads to better delivery and better ROI for those marketers  as well as a better inbox experience for recipients.

Related Posts

The legitimate email marketer

I cannot tell you how many times over the last 10 years I’ve been talking to someone with a problem and had them tell me “but I’m a legitimate email marketer.” Most of them have at least one serious problem, from upstreams that are ready to terminate them for spamming through widespread blocking. In fact, the practices of most companies who proclaim “we’re legitimate email marketers” are so bad that the phrase has entered the lexicon as a sign that the company is attempting to surf the gray area between commercial email and spam as close to the spam side of that territory as possible.
What do I mean by that? I mean that the address collection practices and the mailing processes used by self-proclaimed legitimate email marketers are sloppy. They don’t really care about individual recipients, they just care about the numbers. They buy addresses, they use affiliates, they dip whole limbs in the co-reg pool; all told their subscription practices are very sloppy. Because they didn’t scrape or harvest the email address, they feel justified in claiming the recipient asked for it and that they are legitimate.
They don’t really care that they’re mailing people who don’t want their mail and really never asked to receive it. What kinds of practices am I talking about?
Buying co-reg lists. “But the customer signed up, made a purchase, took an online quiz and the privacy policy says their address can be shared.” The recipient doesn’t care that they agreed to have their email address handed out to all and sundry, they don’t want that mail.
Arguing with subscribers. “But all those people who labeled my mail as spam actually subscribed!!!” Any time a mailer has to argue with a subscriber about the validity of the subscription, there is a problem with the subscription process. If the sender and the receiver disagree on whether there was really an opt-in, the senders are rarely given the benefit of the doubt.
Using affiliates to hide their involvement in spam. A number of companies use advertising agencies that outsource acquisition mailings that end up being sent by spammers. These acquisition mailings are sent by the same spammers sending enlargement spam. The advertiser gets all the benefits of spam without any of the consequences.
Knowing that their signup forms are abused but failing to stop the abuse. A few years back I was talking with a large political mailer. They were insisting they were legitimate email marketers but were finding a lot of mail blocked. I mentioned that they were a large target for people forging addresses in their signup form. I explained that mailing people who never asked for mail was probably the source of their delivery problems. They admitted they were probably mailing people who never signed up, but weren’t going to do anything about it as it was good for their bottom line to have so many subscribers.
Self described legitimate email marketers do the bare minimum possible to meet standards. They talk the talk to convince their customers they’re legitimate:

Read More

Sending too much mail

Not having policies restricting the amount of mail any customer or recipient receives may lead to higher spam complaint rates and blocking warns the DMA Email Marketing Council.
HT: Box of Meat

Read More

Controlling delivery

How much control over delivery do senders have? I have repeatedly said that senders control their delivery. This is mostly true. Senders control their side of the delivery chain, but there is a point where the recipient takes over and controls things.
As a recipient I can

Read More