Stephan Spencer's Scatterings

The Scattered Wisdom of a scientist turned web marketing virtuoso

November 2008
S M T W T F S
 << <   > >>
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Email open rates - reliable or not?

Trying to do effective email marketing without good, reliable metrics by which to measure success, is like flying blind. Yet the reliability of such a key statistic as the open rate of an email campaign has been eroded for various technical and operational reasons. Let's have a closer look at this issue, with the help of the panel of email marketers who participated on the MarketingProfs Thought Leaders Summit on email marketing...

Jim Sterne, author, consultant, speaker and co-founder of the Web Analytics Association, explains that even though the yardstick of open rates may not represent an accurate total, we can still use it to compare ourselves to each other — as long as we all use the same yardstick. And we can use it to ask ourselves: "Am I getting better open rates than yesterday?" since the difference between the two would be a trustworthy number.

Chris Baggot, founding partner of ExactTarget, highlighted the fact that open rates typically fall into more of a branding-type measure:

If you can double the number of people who hit "reply," even if your overall open-rate goes down, what is the better metric? Part of the problem is with industry measures as well as the kind of email that people are sending. Gigantic retailers dominate by overall volume of email, but typically, they are not very good emailers.

Looking at a total pie that is predominantly influenced by people who are doing weekly blasts of coupons or of special offers that aren't very relevant, we need to drop back and say: "Okay, now tell me what happens when I add more data. Tell me what happens when I decrease my frequency for a certain segment of individuals and things like that," and measure what you are really trying to accomplish — not measure open rates or clickthroughs as the total goal of success. Again, that's an impression model left over from television, which, in our business, reeks of the dark ages.

According to Eric Kirby, senior VP and general manager for email solutions at DoubleClick, the yardstick is actually shrinking and here's why: over the past year, more and more email software clients have been adopting a feature that in many cases, by default, will block images from displaying in a message:

Given how we actually track opens in email (using uniquely-named, one-pixel images known as "web bugs") the act of opening will not be visible to the email marketer if the request to load the "web bug" isn't made. Previously, a display within the preview pane in Outlook would have counted as an open, as long as the recipient was online at the time. Today it won't — assuming the recipient hasn't changed that default setting in their new version of Outlook. ISPs and email software providers are adopting this feature because they figure that spam of a graphic nature won’t display, unless the user takes an action to display those messages. But in doing so, they simultaneously sabotage the marketer's ability to measure campaign effectiveness.

DoubleClick actually sees this downward trend in opens in data tracking quarter to quarter. Looking back over the past year of long-term trending data among a similar set of companies, they see slight declines occurring in email open rates. However, analysis indicates that it is being driven by the image-blocking phenomenon. The reason DoubleClick can say that is because other metrics that, over time, directly correlate with open rates, such as clickthrough rates, have actually maintained their performance levels.

According to Eric, one other metric you probably want to be thinking about is purchase rates — because the only purchases we can directly, in most cases, attribute back to email are those that we can track back to a click from that email:

Most companies aren't sophisticated enough to actually look at the multi-channel impact of their email messages, such as when, for example, an email campaign recipient goes in to a store and buys or opens up a catalog and buys over the phone. That isn't being captured today in most cases in email metrics, which actually causes people to under-report or under-credit the impact of email in their overall marketing efforts.

It's surprising how few marketers are looking at trends. Even though the technology and the data are there, marketers aren't utilizing them. Rok Hrastnik, author of Unleash the Marketing and Publishing Power of RSS, explains it well when he says that email tracking is really about trend-watching, rather than exactly pinpointing the actual and absolute numbers. The trends are enough to give us an impression of what works, what doesn’t and what, in fact, makes the sale. In the end, that is the most important thing.

Coverage of SES San Jose: Search Algorithms, The Patent Files

I attended the "Search Algorithms: The Patent Files" session first thing this morning. The panelists were Rand Fishkin, CEO of SEOmoz.org, Ani Kortikar, Founder and CEO, Netramind, Dr. E. Garcia of Mi Islita.com, and Jon Glick, Senior Director of Product Search, Become.com. My favorite presentation was from Jon. He was not overly technical (Dr. Garcia lost me at the advanced mathematics talking about calculating dot products of vectors) yet he gave solid advice. Here's what he had to say, in summary:

Take these patents with a grain of salt, because...
- patent applicants don't need to use all the stuff they include in a patent application.
- patent applicants don't have to disclose all of its features in a patent application.
- and they recognize that SEOs and their competitors are pouring over their patent apps.

With that said, there are some valuable learnings from the 2003 Google patent. Search engines may take into account: CTR on your page in SERPs, rapid changes in content, rapid growth of in-links, and length of time users spend on your site.

So which of these actually impact your rankings? Some are red herrings, such as:
- Clickthrough rate (CTR): it's too easy to distort (e.g. through clickbotting, which is evil and likely to get you penalized). Probably CTR is used for demotion only. In other words, high CTR won't help your organic rankings, but low CTR may lower your rankings.
- Time spent on a site: when users hit the back button almost immediately, it can signify an irrelevant page or 404 error. However, if this was used then this would in effect reward black hat tactics like mousetrapping and endless pop-ups -- tactics that trap users within a site.
- Rate of change in content: Most recent crawl date, last time the content changed, registration date, and first crawl date mostly impacts crawl frequency, not ranking. Duplicate detection technologies are used to find meaningful changes in site content. Meaningful changes in site content do not include putting today's date or today's weather on the page -- it doesn't help rankings. When a site changes its IP address, it is often re-evaluated because it is possibly under new ownership.

According to Jon, what's not a red herring is:
- Rate of change in links: Most Search Engines limit how quickly a site can gain connectivity (sandboxing, link aging). A sudden jump in in-links (e.g. from link farming and interlinking and triangle linking lots of domains) can draw scrutiny. There are exceptions for "spike" sites (editorial review, lots of accompanying news/blog posts, lots of web searches).

Posted by Stephan Spencer on 08/08/2005 | Permalink

Comments (5)| Comments RSS | Filed under: Search Engines , , , , , , , , ,