Recent Posts

Standing in the stadium

If you distill marketing down to its very essence what you find is everyone battling for a targets attention. Everything marketers do is to get “mindshare” or, in normal people terms, attention. The goal is to get people to remember your product over all the other products out there.
Many email marketers seem to think that increasing the frequency of mail is the most successful way to get attention from their recipients. What would happen, then, if every email marketer started sending more email? Would this really get more attention from recipients?
I don’t think so.
Increasing mail frequency is like standing up to see better in a stadium. One person stands up (increases frequency) and that person sees better than they did before. But if everyone stands up (increases frequency), then everyone is back to where they were and everyone is back to not being able to see.

Read More

The myth of the low complaint rate

I have been reading the complaints filed by Holomaxx and will have some analysis and information about them probably Monday or Tuesday next week. I’ve been keeping an eye on the press and something that Ken Magill said caught my eye.

Read More

Birthdays and World Series Parades

Steve whisked me away for a surprise birthday dinner and night in the city. Then we got caught in the crowds for the Giant’s parade and, well, no blogging yesterday or today. Back tomorrow.

Read More

Email appending

Mickey talks about appending and why it’s not a good practice.

Read More

Don't be Amelia

I have an adorable cat that I ‘taught’ that I would pet her if she tapped me on the arm or shoulder with her paw. It was cute for a while, but then she got more and more demanding. Eventually, she was clawing at my clothes and skin to get attention and petting.
It’s gotten to the point where I have to put a stop to it. She’s just getting too destructive to me and my clothing. So over the last two weeks I’ve been trying to only reward those touches that don’t involve claws and giving her a stern “NO CLAWS” when she does try to claw me.
As I was sitting here this afternoon, going through yet another round of NO CLAWS with her, I realized that my interactions with her were eerily similar to email marketing.
You see, Amelia started using her claws to get my attention because I didn’t always respond to her gentle taps. But claws hurt, and were a problem, so I would respond. This is exactly like marketers who don’t see a response to their email marketing campaigns and thus up the aggressiveness of those campaigns. More mail, more frequency, stronger offers, anything to get a response out of recipients.
Eventually, though, the recipient finally gets annoyed. The aggressive “taps” result in spam complaints. The sender has pushed the recipient from “it’s not so bad” to “make this sender stop bugging me.”
Email marketing is interruption marketing and there is only so much recipients will tolerate. And, trust me, few email marketers are as cute as my Amelia Cat.

Read More

More information on arrests

Terry Zink has a more detailed post on some of the spammer arrests and takedowns that have happened recently.
In addition to the events I mentioned yesterday, authorities arrested an Armenian man suspected of running the Bredolab botnet. Unfortunately, the arrest has not stopped the spam with the malware payload.
These are issues that many ISP abuse and postmaster desks deal with on a daily basis. Their filtering schemes and policies are in place to protect customers from the mob, and criminals. I don’t think enough marketers and senders understand exactly how much the ISPs are dealing with and why many ISPs don’t really care that “mail is taking 12 hours to get to the inbox.” They are dealing with much more important things.

Read More

The dark side of email marketing

Everyone I talk to when dealing with issues inevitably has to tell me they are legitimate email marketers. They’re not spammers, they’re just business people. I often find it difficult to fathom why they need to tell me this. It’s not like email marketers are criminals or anything.
Two recent stories reminded me how evil some folks are. While I’ve not had any direct contact (that I know of) with any of the players on this end of things I have zero doubt that if they called me they would tell me that they were legitimate email marketers.
In one case, a members of a spam gang kidnapped the teenage daughter of someone investigating their activities. The gang held her for more than 5 years in horrific conditions. Yesterday Joseph Menn, author of “Fatal System Error” posted on Boing Boing that his friend got his daughter back. It is a heartbreaking story and incredibly sobering.
In another case, the Russian police arrested a man who ran spammit.com, a clearinghouse for viagra sellers to find spammers to send their mail. Reports say that mail volumes dropped by a fifth after the site was taken offline.
There is real evil in the email marketing industry. Sure, they’re spammers and we can all stand up and say they’re not legitimate. But, this is what the ISPs and Spamhaus and law enforcement are dealing with on a regular basis.

Read More

Content based filters

Content based filters are incredibly complex and entire books could be written about how they work and what they look at. Of course, by the time the book was written it would be entirely obsolete. Because of their complexity, though, I am always looking for new ways to explain them to folks.
Content based filters look at a whole range of things, from the actual text in the message, to the domains, to the IP addresses those domains and URLs point to. They look at the hidden structure of an email. They look at what’s in the body of the message and what’s in the headers. There isn’t a single bit of a message that content filters ignore.
Clients usually ask me what words they should change to avoid the filters. But this isn’t the right question to ask. Usually it’s not a word that causes the problem. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.
James H. has an example over on the Cloudmark blog of how a single missing space in an email caused delivery problems for a large company. That missing space changed a domain name in the message sufficiently to be caught by a number of filters. This is one type of content filter, that focuses on what the message is advertising or who the beneficiary of the message is. Some of my better clients get caught by these types of filters occasionally. A website they’re linking to or a domain name they’re using in the text of the message has a bad reputation. The mail gets bulked or blocked because of that domain in the message.
One of my clients went from 100% inbox every day to random failures at different domains. Their overall inbox was still in the 96 – 98% range, but there was a definite change. The actual content of their mail hadn’t changed, but we kept looking for underlying causes. At one point we were on the phone and they mentioned their new content management system. Sure enough, the content management company had a poor reputation and the delivery problems started exactly when they started using the content management. The tricky part of this was that the actual domains and URLs in the messages never changed, they were still clickthrough.clientdomain.example.com. But those URLs now pointed to an IP address that a lot of spammers were abusing. So there were delivery problems. We made some changes to their setup and the delivery problems went away.
The third example is one from quite a long time ago, but illustrates a key point. A client was testing email sends through a new ESP. They were sending one-line mail through the ESPs platform to their own email account. Their corporate spamfilter was blocking the mail. After much investigation and a bit of string pulling, I finally got to talk to an engineer at the spamfiltering company. He told me that they were blocking the mail because it “looked like spam.” When pressed, he told me they blocked anything that had a single line of text and an unsubscribe link. Once the client added a second line of text, the filtering issue went away.
These are just some of the examples of how complex content based filters are. Content is almost a misnomer for them, as they look at so many other things including layout, URLs, domains and links.

Read More

Ah, Spammers.

The too many.
The stupid.
The spammers.
The blog spammers are still actively attempting to get their claws into my blog. Today the comments included:

Read More

Broken Policies

As an email policy wonk, I think a lot about how specific policy implementations can go wrong. Sure, every policy can go wrong, or not fit a common case. A lot of people only write polices that address common cases and don’t worry about the rarer cases. The problem is there are some rare cases that may cause significant harm and those cases should be addressed.
Consumerist has a case up about email policy gone wrong with a clear path to harm but no policy for handling the issue. There are a couple places I see where this policy hole can be fixed.
Chase Bank does no verification when they collect email addresses, which results in them sending email to a person who does not have an account with Chase. This is not an ideal situation for anyone. Chase is revealing private financial information to an outside party, the actual bank customer is not getting their information and someone is getting email about money that’s not theirs.
In terms of policy for institutions handling sensitive personal information, I would always recommend implementing a verification step. This is mail that people want so they should confirm it. It’s also mail that really should be not going to 3rd parties.
Chase does not implement any verification step for email. This isn’t a fatal problem, as long as there is some process in place to get feedback and then correct the issue.
Unfortunately, Chase’s policies failed here, too. Chase requires an account number to speak to a representative about any issues. In this case, the email recipient does not have an account number. All of Chase’s contact channels rely on an account number: no account number, no talking to a human.
In terms of overall policy  Chase is hoping here is that, at some point, their actual customer will notice they’re not getting email and call in and attempt to troubleshoot the problem with Chase reps. I’m willing to bet, though, that their tier 1 people don’t have the training or information needed to troubleshoot this problem. I expect they’re going to read the script that says, “We sent you the mail, it must be a problem on your end. Have a nice day.”
Chase, and other bank analogues that require an account number, that do not verify email addresses should not require account numbers to talk to someone about the mail they are receiving. Why? Because although it’s reasonably rare that the mail is going to the wrong party, the potential harm to the bank’s customer is very high. This danger to customers means the bank should invest in a support pathway that allows non-customers to call, or write, to report misdirected email.
If Chase were my customer, I’d recommend adding a button to the email that says “receiving this mail in error, report here.” Make this a simple form that the recipient can fill out, two boxes one for email address and one optional one for “reason”. Once the bank has the report, they can stop the misdirected email and attempt to contact the customer through another channel. I’d also recommend that customers confirm any new address they add to the account in the future.
I know the bank thinks that by requiring an account number they are protecting their customers. Unfortunately, they’re failing to address a rare but potentially harmful case. Sadly, I expect even after this, they will still fail to implement any changes that will stop this from happening in the future.

Read More
Categories
Tags