I'm a bit of an email geek.

I evaluate nearly every email in my inbox and many in my spam folder. I read and contribute to many of the industry blogs and publications. I peek over my wife's shoulder as she's scanning her inbox to better understand how she "consumes" email marketing campaigns. Unfortunately, I'm often disappointed at the number of email communications that fail; those that miss the boat, forget to treat consumers like humans, and don't set proper expectations.

That's why when I see something like this from Chase (see landing page below), I get jazzed. I want to celebrate the good. They did it! Yay! Yay!

Brief Backstory

I recently made the switch to the Southwest Credit Card, mostly because I love Southwest Airlines. I signed up my Southwest/Chase credit card online and promptly forgot my username and password. Awesome, right? Thankfully, like most sites, they have a step-by step process to retrieve my information. You've likely stepped through this before. You answer a series of challenge questions. Then, your username and/or password is either displayed or some type of code/link are sent to you via email. Standard procedure.

Setting Proper Expectations

The Chase Online process was quite similar to the typical one described above, with a twist. When it came to the deliverability of the Identification Code, there was a nice alert informing me of what could happen with the recently sent email. Take a minute to read what's inside the red box. You may have to click the image to enlarge. (Note: I added the red box.)

They set clear expectations. Not only that, but they used language that was aligned with the average consumer - internet traffic, software settings, etc. They didn't barrage me with technical-speak. They told me what to expect and when.

Nice job Chase Online! You win today's gold star.

Are you setting proper expectations? Do people know what to expect, when, and how often?

DJ Waldow
Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
@djwaldow

Note: This post was originally published on The Email Zoo on August 17, 2009.

-----

The White House just sent me spam.

As a guy in the email industry, I don't toss the S-word around lightly. However, that was my immediate reaction when an email from "David Axelrod, The White House" landed in my inbox last week.

Now, let me be clear. From a CAN-SPAM perspective, this was not spam. It was unsolicited, but not illegal. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 does not require mailers to prove opt-in; instead they must provide the ability to opt-out. Also, political emails are exempt (<--This may be debatable).

That being said, CAN-SPAM is the legal framework. It does not comment on "best practices" or even more basic, "doing what is right." Some people who received this email from "David Axelrod, The White House" clearly were not happy. I don't know the background on Major Garrett, but he seemed less then happy (or maybe he was just stirring the political pot). As Fox News says, "...you decide." 

Besides the fact that this clip is entertaining - no matter what side of the aisle you are on - it brings up some interesting questions:

• Did the White House rent a list or used forwarded email addresses?
• **How - if at all - will they address this issue? Send an apology email? Issue a formal press release? Will Obama talk about it?
• Are the email rules different for the government?
• Does anyone care that they are not following sound email marketing best practices (see comments below)?

**Since this report/video was released last week, the White House has responded: "White House will change e-mail rules" A quick critique of why this email failed from a design perspective:

 

1. From Name:. I don't know who "David Axelrod, The White House" is. I had to google him. Okay, now I "remember" - he's the Senior Advisor to President Obama. Who would take the time to look that up? Also, all I can see in my gmail inbox is "David Axelrod, The..." Verdict? Delete/Spam.

2. Subject Line: "Something worth forwarding" looks, smells, and tastes of spam. It might as well have said, "Send $1,000,000 to the Central Bank of Nigeria." Verdict? Delete/Spam.

3. Length/Copy: Lots of text, lots of scrolling. No call to action above the fold. Nothing to entice me to read beyond my initial scan. Verdict? Delete/Spam.

4. "Please don't reply": I wrote about this back in my Bronto days: http://blog.bronto.com/2008/11/21/donotreadthispost/. Blasting out an email to me and then telling me I can't reply is not engagement. Verdict? Delete/Spam.

----

Did you receive the same email in your inbox last week? Did you have similar thoughts? Did you read it or delete it? Did you mark it as spam or junk? Did you have the same reaction to the content as I did? How about the video clip?

DJ Waldow Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory

Or is it? I recently blogged about how Bank of America used valuable real estate to tell their readers that the email is NOT spam.

Read the full eec post

Below I've copied a section of the post that is most relevant to this blog. I've also added a few deliverabilty-related thoughts to consider.

---------------

Why This Technique May Work

Hey, you've gotta give credit for Bank of America for not giving up on email marketing as a engagment channel. While I may have historically marked this as spam out of habit, I didn't this time. Was it because of the timing of their email (I just secured a B of A Mortgage)? Was it because they told me the email was NOT spam? Who knows.

I wonder what their open vs. unsubscribe/spam ratios looked like for this campaign. Did they do some A|B testing on that big red box telling me "This is NOT spam"? Maybe that phrase works for some, maybe for the majority. So, Bank of America - did this work?

Why This Technique May Fail

Telling me something is NOT spam makes me think even more that it IS spam. That's what spammers and phishers do. "Please trust us. We're the good guys, the guys with the white hats." Yeah, right. I trust you. Also, if you have to tell me something is NOT something I think it may be, well...you're already starting behind. As mentioned above, that preheader / above-the-fold area is what usually is seen first. Bank of America wants me to complete the survey, but I may be caught up on the fact that this email is or is NOT spam.

---------------

As we know with deliverability, there are many factors that determine whether or not your email will get delivered (inbox or otherwise). A few thoughts/questions to ponder:

1. Did this strategy by Bank of America result in fewer complaints, hence improving delieverability overall? Or, is the reputation of their IPs already damaged?

2. Will this be the trend adopted by other financial institutions? Other email marketers?

3. Will blacklists and ISPs "go easier" (read: less weight on complaints) on companies sending legitimate email that utilizes this approach?

What do you think?

DJ Waldow
Director of Community at Blue Sky Factory

This was a recent question posted on the forum of the Email Marketers Club* (EMC). Within minutes, the comments started flooding in. This was a no-brainer. A softball. My reply?

Simple answer. I'd recommend lopping off all email addresses that are over 1 year old. Don't send to them - ever. I blogged about the reasons why a few months back: Email Address Shelf Life. Risk > Reward. I was encouraged by other EMC members echoing and elaborating on my sentiments. The beauty of an active community is that they jump all over forum posts like this one. A sampling of some of the comments:

• "The longer and older is your mailing list the bigger is your problem. if you start sending a lot of invalid emails to Hotmail or Yahoo! you will be blocked."
• "I would second the opinion of not sending anything over a year old. I would make sure you set the expectations with your client on the possible pitfalls of mailing data this old. I don't recognize some emails I signed up for 6 months ago never mind 6 years ago."
• "The best list is never the largest, but rather the most receptive to your message."
• "Good luck sending that list without getting booted by your ESP."
• "Why would you use a service to clean a list that so obviously just needs truncating? DJ is right, as most of the time of course, you need to dump contacts."
• "Quite frankly your client needs to wake up. A 7 year old list with 2.8 Million contacts has just wasted them, at the very least, 6.5 years of time."

The individual with the original question was not giving up easily. He wrote:

This [sic] people have a very well know website, very popular, and until 3 - 4 years ago they used to send a monthly newsletter to this list. Now they are planning to re-start the newsletter using our services. They say that the first couple of years they had opt in, and for the past 4 years or so, double-opt in.

I almost lost it. My reply... Well known, popular, etc does not exempt them from having a bad list. Again, my recommendation is to chop off all emails that are >1 year old. Double opt-in or not...get rid of them. Too much changes in a year. Email addresses go dormant (leading to honeypot addresses). Dedicated IP or not, if you send to a 7 year old list, your IP will get blocked. Not good for a well-known company, right?

It seems like this topic has been a hot one this week. Our friend Ben Chestnut of MailChimp blogged "Real stats: How sending to old lists will kill your deliverability." One of the sharpest minds in the industry, Stephanie Miller of Return Path, fired back a cautionary reply in her post, "The Risks (and Sometimes Rewards) of Not Following Best Practices."

The moral of the story is this: Sending to an old list is very risky and most often far outweighs the benefits. It is no longer good enough to just "do" email marketing. Smart, strategic, best practice email marketing always wins.

DJ Waldow
Director of Best Practices & Deliverability at Bronto

*The Email Marketers Club is social networking site with over 1800 members founded in May 2007 by Tamara Gielen of BeRelevant. It provides a platform for email marketers across the globe to network and share information and experiences with each other.

I was recently told that I've been on a "car kick" these past few weeks. It all started with my EEC post on June 13th, "Enterprise: Great Intent, Poor Execution" where I discussed how Enterprise sent me a confirmation email (good) but then continued to send me emails even though I didn't confirm (bad). Today's post will continue down the automobile comparison road as it relates to the taboo subject of...list rental. At this summer's Email Insider Summit, I sat at a breakout session where marketers were debating 3rd party list rental. Suffice to say, the discussion got quite heated. Seems like you are either on one side of the fence or the other...not much room in the middle. If you're in good company, list rental is just as dangerous a topic as religion or politics ("the things we don't talk about"). Later that evening, I sat at dinner between a friend of mine from another ESP and a gentleman whose company provides email appends and list rentals. Emotions flew back and forth for over 30 minutes. Why is the topic of list rental so controversial? But first...

How is List Rental Like Car Rental?

• The Company: There are scores if not hundreds of different places you can rent a car from. Some are reputable, well-known companies (think Hertz, Avis, Enterprise), while others can be a bit shady (think Rent4Free, Rent-A-Wreck). Most often, you get what you pay for. The same goes for list rental services. Some list rental companies are backed by well-known organizations (see Return Path's Postmaster Network).
   
• The Car (List): Sometimes you get a good car (list), sometimes you're not so fortunate. If you are lucky, the car drives well, responds to corners, gets good gas mileage. Other times, you get the leftover clunker that breaks down on the Pacific Coast Highway.  Similar to email list rental, sometimes you get subscribers who are really interested in your product/services, more than likely - not.

Why is List Rental So Controversial?

The problem that can occur with list rental is that if you aren't utilizing best practices for subscriber acquisition, then you could end up with a less than engaged audience.  To me, that is the biggest difference.  From what I've seen, list rentals not utilizing best acquisition practices tend to have much lower open, click-through, and conversion rates once engaged in your email marketing program.  In and of itself, lower rates are not a cause for panic, but a damaged reputation is. In my experience, emails not utilizing best acquisition practices, that are sent to rented lists, are more likely to be marked as junk/spam, and have a higher unsubscribe rate.  This is where you can run into issues. I'm not quite sold on the concept of list rental. But...if you are going to rent, be smart about it. If you think about the first email as an opt-in vs opt-out, you're likely to see a healthier list (with fewer subscribers). In my opinion, worth the trade off.  A blog post from August of 2007 penned by Return Path's CEO & Chairman, Matt Blumberg, lists 9 practices that are a must to help obtain higher inbox placement. In the same post, Matt closes with a very real, honest admission

 "And, it's worth saying: the key is that we do all of these things. Plenty of third-party marketers do some of them. But deliverability has never been about finding a silver bullet. It's about pulling on all the levers that influence reputation to achieve optimum inbox placement. We're not where we want to be, but we've made great strides improving our reputation and our inbox placement."

I'm not sure I could have said it any better.

DJ Waldow
Account Manager at Bronto