There were a couple of blog posts yesterday interviewing experts in the field of email. Also yesterday I had a quick review of my Google Analytic stats for this site. Additionally, a friend pointed me to this terrible blog post from an ESP that isn’t even using terms in industry standard ways. And finally, Spamhaus released a statement about a “fake DNSBL.”

You see, as I was looking at my Google Analytic stats, I came across an old post of mine from last year. The (unstated) point of that post was to make us think about who we’re listing as experts in email matters.

The link in that post was to an article written by someone who claimed expertise in “Web Analytics” about email. The information in the article was both silly (Was anyone shocked that email isn’t picked up by search engines?) and demonstrably wrong (“Transactional e-mail does not have CAN-SPAM requirements”).

There was a similar post the next day after about other “experts” who are wrong. You might think that state attorneys general would know about the statutes that they are expected to enforce. But, if you do think that, then you’re going to find yourself sadly disillusioned.

And, of course, people depend upon operators of blocking lists to be experts in their field. As Spamhaus points out, some folks just rip off the work of others and pass themselves off as experts while hoping to make a quick buck through delisting fees.

So, yesterday, we saw articles interviewing two experts in email delivery. Both Al Iverson and Annalivia Ford deserve the title of “expert” and people should listen to them. So, to me that brings up a question: Which experts are we listening to?

Are we listening to real experts? Or, are we making decisions about email based upon the advice of web analytic experts and poorly informed attorneys or ESPs who don’t know where the industry is or where it’s going?

So, dear readers, which experts are you listening to? Who influences your decision-making? Let’s hear from you in the comments.

I have suggested several times that senders need to take responsibility for what they send. Part of taking that responsibility is being approachable.

When you send email to your boss, your reports, or your mother, what is your expectation? You expect that they will reply to you at some point. But, when you send a marketing message out into the world, what do you expect?

For many companies, the answer is that they full expect that people will not reply to them at any point. In fact, they go so far as to actually tell people that they don’t want to hear back from them. They do this by using “noreply” as part of the sender address, or maybe saying things like:

Please do not reply to this message; it was sent from an unmonitored email address.

The fact of the matter is that your recipients expect email to work like you do: As a two-way communications medium. When you use it only as a broadcast medium, you’re going to find yourself working at cross-purposes to your recipients.

And that’s rarely a good thing.

Have you ever noticed how teenagers want to “be my own person!” and not “follow the crowd” even as they rush to do so? For everything ranging from their hairstyles and clothes to their cars and leisure activities, teenagers find stress in fitting in.

Marketers are a lot like that too. Everyone tries to run with their own uniqueness, but they do the same things.

Everyone looks at the same markers. For instance, do you actually have any idea what “open rate” means in terms of real content views? No one outside of an ISP controlling the mail interface can tell you who opened what because “open rate” is based upon image loading. But, back in 2008, MarketingSherpa noted that “59% of consumers and 90% of business email users view some or all of their email with images turned off.” Does anyone take that into account? So, comparing open rates is like comparing bad mullets. Every teenager in the 1980s had one and they were all uniquely the same, and quite pointless.

So, what’s the point here? The point is that marketers need to grow up. Find stats that actually mean something and stop looking at the stuff that doesn’t, just because everyone else is looking at it and comparing it.

Al Iverson has a short, but great post up on engagement being an old thing up over at Spam Resource. There are some statistics that can help you there that you already know about.

• How many people follow through on your call to action? This is usually measured as a “click rate” but can also just be the number of times that someone gives you a call, or prints out your email coupon and takes it to the store.
• How many people unsubscribe? No one ever seems to look at this, but I think it’s important to listen to your subscribers.
• How long has it been since a particular subscriber responded to your message? If they don’t care, they’ll mark it as spam eventually.

The statistics that you have access to on engagement are the ones that can actually do something to help you. And I, personally, long for the day when marketers stop comparing the size of their lists, and start comparing the activity they get from their lists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• R-e-s-p-e-c-t (spamtacular.com)
• Polly wants a cracker! (annaliviaford.com)
• How do unengaged recipients hurt delivery? (wordtothewise.com)
• Before you start a reactivation campaign… (email-marketing-reports.com)
• Some Good Deliverability Advice from AOL (b2bemailmarketing.com)

As you may, or may not know, I left my former position as Director of ISP Relations for Informz, Inc., and have taken the plunge by starting the new year out as a consultant.

Now what, may I ask you, is a more “consultant-y” thing to do than release a white paper? I couldn’t think of anything either. So, with a bit of encouragement from my friends, I have released my Top 10 Delivery Tips for 2010 as a white paper. It is available for download on my business website. It is also available for the Kindle for $3.00.