Spam filters are a funny breed of technology - given at how many levels they operate - ISP, email programme, desktop etc, they have become like fences in the Grand National - very hard to negotiate.
They also lack coverage or commentary - so it is difficult to know if you have fallen, and if so, when or where.
Each filter is different and, it seems, increasing zealous - presumably in a bid to become the market leader.
AntiSpam - stops 99.9% of all spam (and lots of legitimate emails as well)
A client, fed up with her subscriber only emails getting filtered on an ad hoc basis, recently tried an experiment - she included every spammer phrase she could find, and the results were astounding - the highest open rate ever!
Made me, and the advice I had been giving her, look pretty silly.
The point is that it is a lottery nowadays - and suggestions for industry standards will only make it easier for spammers - they will have a much more precise definition of what they have to combat.
The problem with 3rd party filters is that they are deciding for you - at Inbox we have a no filters policy, and if that means we spend 10 minutes a day clicking delete in reply to those kind people who want to award us $30 million or enhance or gooleys, then so be it.
At least we get all of our email.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Innovate or die!
The economic recession of 2009 has changed many things. It has had a pronounced effect on result driven email marketing - mainly downwards.
Shocked by the downturn, and the impact it had on their income and asset values, many consumers entered 2010 with a new set of values - based around the principle of economising.
Even in my house, we vowed to make 2010 the year of economise without compromise - which in layman's terms meant drinking good red wine only once a week instead of the previous every day approach.
Email marketers who had been doing very nicely with their weekly emails, found very quickly into the new year that sales generated by emails were down, thus disproving the old adage "if you do what you did, you'll get what you got"
Consumer spending patters and motivations are simply not the same as they used to be, and any retailer who ignores this and just hopes for a return to the old ways will be found out.
To adapt your retail strategy to meet the new market, and to try and boost demand for your offerings, there is a need to innovate in the way you sell them.
Of all retail channels, email is surely the best suited to this - the ease, and low cost of changing your emails, the volume and way in which content is presented etc is great. Compare it to a store refit, even a website redesign.
Email also allows much smarter and more personalised marketing - use these capabilities to the full. Segment your database, and don't be afraid to try different approaches for different segments. It costs nothing, it produces quantifiable and instantaneous results - results you can learn from and amend your future outreach accordingly.
A client and I had a reasonably strong difference of opinion recently over a subject line for an immediate call to action email - I suggested we split her database down the middle and see whose line got the better opening rate.
As it happens, she did - 39% to 35%. The point is, we knew instantly - not so much about the respective merits of our creativity, but in fact more about what sort of subject line motivated her database to open their emails.
So for 2010, for retail email marketers, if you do what you did, you'll get less than you got.
Innovate - don't be afraid - and with email you have the perfect medium.
Shocked by the downturn, and the impact it had on their income and asset values, many consumers entered 2010 with a new set of values - based around the principle of economising.
Even in my house, we vowed to make 2010 the year of economise without compromise - which in layman's terms meant drinking good red wine only once a week instead of the previous every day approach.
Email marketers who had been doing very nicely with their weekly emails, found very quickly into the new year that sales generated by emails were down, thus disproving the old adage "if you do what you did, you'll get what you got"
Consumer spending patters and motivations are simply not the same as they used to be, and any retailer who ignores this and just hopes for a return to the old ways will be found out.
To adapt your retail strategy to meet the new market, and to try and boost demand for your offerings, there is a need to innovate in the way you sell them.
Of all retail channels, email is surely the best suited to this - the ease, and low cost of changing your emails, the volume and way in which content is presented etc is great. Compare it to a store refit, even a website redesign.
Email also allows much smarter and more personalised marketing - use these capabilities to the full. Segment your database, and don't be afraid to try different approaches for different segments. It costs nothing, it produces quantifiable and instantaneous results - results you can learn from and amend your future outreach accordingly.
A client and I had a reasonably strong difference of opinion recently over a subject line for an immediate call to action email - I suggested we split her database down the middle and see whose line got the better opening rate.
As it happens, she did - 39% to 35%. The point is, we knew instantly - not so much about the respective merits of our creativity, but in fact more about what sort of subject line motivated her database to open their emails.
So for 2010, for retail email marketers, if you do what you did, you'll get less than you got.
Innovate - don't be afraid - and with email you have the perfect medium.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What will 2010 mean for email?
It's a tough question, especially because in many ways, email has dropped off the radar as a hot topic - especially in New Zealand.
Has email become boring? Has it been so overshadowed by the current obsession with desperately trying to find some justification for social media sites as valid marketing tools?
There are two reasons why a medium of communication might be topical - technological development, and development of impact.
Email is a relatively complete medium - highly functional, yet simple. But it's technological advancement will depend upon advancements in supporting platforms, hardware and transmission capabilities. As such, email is probably on of the most mature web based concepts available.
So for email to become big news in 2010, it is going to have to make an impact - by increasing ROI for email marketers.
Which brings our wheel full circle - again. Email, like any tool, is only as good as the hands it is in.
We can all send emails, we can all operate DIY bulk email programmes, but unless email marketers finally get their heads around the fact that email is a unique medium requiring unique knowledge, experience and expertise to operate successfully, then the only place email is going in 2010 is backwards.
And that would be a shame.
Has email become boring? Has it been so overshadowed by the current obsession with desperately trying to find some justification for social media sites as valid marketing tools?
There are two reasons why a medium of communication might be topical - technological development, and development of impact.
Email is a relatively complete medium - highly functional, yet simple. But it's technological advancement will depend upon advancements in supporting platforms, hardware and transmission capabilities. As such, email is probably on of the most mature web based concepts available.
So for email to become big news in 2010, it is going to have to make an impact - by increasing ROI for email marketers.
Which brings our wheel full circle - again. Email, like any tool, is only as good as the hands it is in.
We can all send emails, we can all operate DIY bulk email programmes, but unless email marketers finally get their heads around the fact that email is a unique medium requiring unique knowledge, experience and expertise to operate successfully, then the only place email is going in 2010 is backwards.
And that would be a shame.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Words that get your email junked
I read a story today about email which, if weren’t so grotesque, would be funny.
That government department which deals with youth problems will reject all emails sent to it which contain the word teen.
An overzealous (or moronic) webmaster has decided that the potential pornographic connotations of the word teen outweigh the importance of communicating about teens – with a government department who’s responsibility they are.
A client recently sent an email to it’s database which turned up a very high error rate – after exhaustive investigation we determined the word breast had caused the problem – even though Bayesian filter authors will tell you that context affects such decision – our client sells meat, and the breasts in question were chicken ones, and so YahooXtra bounced the lot.
It all stems, of course, from our obsession with diminishing spam volumes. The manner in which this manifests itself in the above examples is endemic of the way our society deals with all problems and consequent legislation nowadays – punish all to mitigate the behaviour of the few.
And it’s rubbish.
That government department which deals with youth problems will reject all emails sent to it which contain the word teen.
An overzealous (or moronic) webmaster has decided that the potential pornographic connotations of the word teen outweigh the importance of communicating about teens – with a government department who’s responsibility they are.
A client recently sent an email to it’s database which turned up a very high error rate – after exhaustive investigation we determined the word breast had caused the problem – even though Bayesian filter authors will tell you that context affects such decision – our client sells meat, and the breasts in question were chicken ones, and so YahooXtra bounced the lot.
It all stems, of course, from our obsession with diminishing spam volumes. The manner in which this manifests itself in the above examples is endemic of the way our society deals with all problems and consequent legislation nowadays – punish all to mitigate the behaviour of the few.
And it’s rubbish.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The threat of social media?
Many wise heads have suggested the social media revolution spells the end for email.
I beg to differ.
First it was Friends Reunited, then MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, and most lately, Twitter. New, exciting ways to communicate. Only Facebook and Twitter still cut any ice, and I believe Twitter to be no more than a fad. Watch it die death as mainstream media as celebs desert it en masse.
Facebook may survive, but already its pages are littered with the remains of casual, lapsed users. Try searching for a name, and see how many dormant entries there are.
These are not media - they are applications, whereas email is a unique medium. Applications will come and go. Some will morph into survival, some will die through user inertia, or stark lack of revenue.
But email has already taken it's place amongst the bedrock media on which our lives are based, and will endure. As a communications tool, as a marketing device. Email works, and does not depend upon being commercialised to survive.
Clever marketers will integrate social media into their campaigns, but email will need to be, must be a fundamental component of these for the campaigns to succeed.
Email is, after the telephone, our best chance to talk directly, personally and individually to people. It is already many people preferred method of communication. It allows response, rather than reaction.
It has so many benefits, and it will be here long after Facebook, Twitter et al have been consigned to the publishing graveyard in the nether regions of the world wide web.
I beg to differ.
First it was Friends Reunited, then MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, and most lately, Twitter. New, exciting ways to communicate. Only Facebook and Twitter still cut any ice, and I believe Twitter to be no more than a fad. Watch it die death as mainstream media as celebs desert it en masse.
Facebook may survive, but already its pages are littered with the remains of casual, lapsed users. Try searching for a name, and see how many dormant entries there are.
These are not media - they are applications, whereas email is a unique medium. Applications will come and go. Some will morph into survival, some will die through user inertia, or stark lack of revenue.
But email has already taken it's place amongst the bedrock media on which our lives are based, and will endure. As a communications tool, as a marketing device. Email works, and does not depend upon being commercialised to survive.
Clever marketers will integrate social media into their campaigns, but email will need to be, must be a fundamental component of these for the campaigns to succeed.
Email is, after the telephone, our best chance to talk directly, personally and individually to people. It is already many people preferred method of communication. It allows response, rather than reaction.
It has so many benefits, and it will be here long after Facebook, Twitter et al have been consigned to the publishing graveyard in the nether regions of the world wide web.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Spam? What spam?
Heard about Spam recently? It seems to have dropped off the radar completely – as a news item anyway. I still get around 30-40 junk mails everyday. But at least I know they are illegally sent. What a comfort.
I also still get several faxes and phone calls on a daily basis – all unsolicited, all unwelcome and all far more intrusive. But they are legal. They are also from reputable organisations – banks and such, all with outstanding, must have offers which just don’t seem that appealing when you are trying to get the children to bed.
So is that it for spam? Have we just accepted it? Have people realised that pressing delete 30 times a day is actually not that hard? Could it even be that as the first internet generation ages, emails about the little blue pill are not quite so unacceptable?
Time marches on, email is old hat, Facebook, Twitter et al get all the headlines now. And people deal with spam – as they always should have. That’s what will defeat it in the end. Hitting the delete button.
I also still get several faxes and phone calls on a daily basis – all unsolicited, all unwelcome and all far more intrusive. But they are legal. They are also from reputable organisations – banks and such, all with outstanding, must have offers which just don’t seem that appealing when you are trying to get the children to bed.
So is that it for spam? Have we just accepted it? Have people realised that pressing delete 30 times a day is actually not that hard? Could it even be that as the first internet generation ages, emails about the little blue pill are not quite so unacceptable?
Time marches on, email is old hat, Facebook, Twitter et al get all the headlines now. And people deal with spam – as they always should have. That’s what will defeat it in the end. Hitting the delete button.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In to win?
Smart companies are constantly looking to increase their databases. You have to, just to compete with organic database fatigue and wastage. These factors reduce most lists by around 7% per year.
Any database growth will, by the very nature of its initiative, lead to a higher wastage level initially - usually because joining the database is incentivised - a good portion of those who sign up for your incentive do so because they want to win the prize - not because they want your newsletter.
But it is still a valid way of increasing database numbers.
However, and it is a big however, I recently spotted a flaw in this - I investigated further and found that at least 50% of email based competitions which were aimed at database growth contained this flaw.
The email in question offered a great prize, and I signed up immediately. But the only contact detail it requested was my email address. Three weeks later, I was routinely clearing my junk folder of the 700 odd emails offering me the way to sexual nirvana, when I happened upon one saying I had won the prize being offered.
I immediately rang the organisers only to be told that I was too late, and the prize had been given to someone else. I explained that their email (Subject line YOU ARE A BIG WINNER) had been filtered. Why hadn't they called me, I asked? They didn't have my phone number, they replied - because they had not asked for it.
And there lies the flaw. Any email making noise about being a winner in the subject line (especially all in caps) is likely to be considered spam and get junked. If, however, the subject line looks mundane, then it may not get read - especially if the sender is not on your "must read emails from" list.
So get a phone number as well - if you are running a competition, and all people need to do is enter, then it is your responsibility to ensure winners are properly notified - and become good members of your email database.
Any database growth will, by the very nature of its initiative, lead to a higher wastage level initially - usually because joining the database is incentivised - a good portion of those who sign up for your incentive do so because they want to win the prize - not because they want your newsletter.
But it is still a valid way of increasing database numbers.
However, and it is a big however, I recently spotted a flaw in this - I investigated further and found that at least 50% of email based competitions which were aimed at database growth contained this flaw.
The email in question offered a great prize, and I signed up immediately. But the only contact detail it requested was my email address. Three weeks later, I was routinely clearing my junk folder of the 700 odd emails offering me the way to sexual nirvana, when I happened upon one saying I had won the prize being offered.
I immediately rang the organisers only to be told that I was too late, and the prize had been given to someone else. I explained that their email (Subject line YOU ARE A BIG WINNER) had been filtered. Why hadn't they called me, I asked? They didn't have my phone number, they replied - because they had not asked for it.
And there lies the flaw. Any email making noise about being a winner in the subject line (especially all in caps) is likely to be considered spam and get junked. If, however, the subject line looks mundane, then it may not get read - especially if the sender is not on your "must read emails from" list.
So get a phone number as well - if you are running a competition, and all people need to do is enter, then it is your responsibility to ensure winners are properly notified - and become good members of your email database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
