Your email sender reputation: the timing problem

OK, when the guardians of the world's email accounts look at your incoming email, we know they use your sender reputation as a top criterion for deciding whether to deliver (or not) your message.

We also know that this sender reputation is built from various components, for example:

• the spam reports your emails generate,

• the addresses you send to (for example, are you still trying to email addresses that don't exist?), and

• (increasingly) the way recipients interact with your emails

People hitting "this is junk" or "this is spam" buttons are perhaps the most critical component of your sender reputation, a point hammered home recently by Loren McDonald.

He suggests we see these spam reports as feedback mechanisms...a kind of market research that tells us when we need to change email course.

Whether people click those particular buttons depends on another kind of sender reputation...the reputation you've established with that individual recipient.

This concept is explored in an excellent new article by Ian Giles and Matthew Vernhout of ThinData. They outline ten "branding elements" that help boost and consolidate this reputation, thus lowering the risk that a recipient sees you as spam.

One element mentioned by the authors (and others) is the idea of delivery consistency. If you follow a consistent delivery schedule, then you train people to expect and recognize your emails when they arrive.

This helps your sender reputation in two ways. It means less spam complaints. But there's also the suggestion of a more direct impact, with ISPs marking consistent delivery schedules as a plus in their reputation calculations (see this article on Yahoo, as an example.)

This brings me to the problem. Consistent schedules do not fit in with some of the more promising "advanced" email marketing techniques. Heidi Cohen, yesterday, talks about behaviorally-targeted email. And today, Lee-Ann Vermaak argues in favor of email follow-ups from call centers.

As soon as you start to tie emails to behavior, customer lifecycles, trigger events etc., frequency becomes more inconsistent.

But do inconsistent delivery schedules then leave the recipient confused? Can this harm your sender reputation?

I don't think there's too much of an issue here. The answer to those questions is no, provided you meet two criteria.

1. Recognition. If you're sending diverse emails, ensure that each clearly identifies where they're coming from. And (ideally) ensure they share enough features to allow recipients to recognize them as coming from a common (reputable) source. This touches on issues of branding and centralized email management.

2. Relevancy. If the irregular communications have clear benefits to the recipient, then you're on safer ground.

Fortunately, these "advanced" emails are by definition more relevant and targeted (that's why they are so promising.)

Deviating from an established delivery pattern only starts to break down reputation-wise when you ignore these two criteria.

There is a big difference between rushing out an extra promotion because you want to clear the warehouse for a new delivery, and doing the same knowing that the selected recipients have a track record of interest in that kind of product.

Thoughts?

More on deliverability | Tags: email marketing, email reputation, sender reputation, email deliverability, email timing

Sign-up for the Email Marketing Reports NEWSLETTER
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.

Email:      First Name:     
    More info and sample

 feed | email | Twitter | Facebook

The main website for everything email marketing
Email marketing search engine
Introduction and email advertising basics
Service listings and sources of statistics
Advice on email design and delivery issues

Top 21 email marketing info sources
Outlook 2007 and HTML design
42 HTML email design resources

follow me on Twitter