![jigsaw puzzle](https://i0.wp.com/www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/pexels-photo-1586950.jpeg?resize=360%2C182&ssl=1)
Dela’s Challenge
In comments on an article in the Magill Report, I had this to say about things I keep hearing from Dela Quist: I’m sure that Dela has a smashing marketing program, but I keep hearing him say the things you’ve got in this article and that they’ll work “if you’re not doing anything stupid.” And he might even
![](https://i0.wp.com/www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/09/54e2dc454b5ba514f1dc8460962a3f7f1d37d8f85254784a71277ed09645_640_triage.jpg?resize=360%2C182&ssl=1)
The difference between triage and planning
I read an interesting post by Andrew Kordek at Trendline Interactive this morning. Its premise is that “Organizations need to do a better job at defining an inactive.” And the fact is, he’s right. I also think that this ties into recent discussions regarding whether “best practices” are actually the best things for folks to
![USS Missouri fires a broadside](https://i0.wp.com/www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/03/Missouri_broadside.jpg?resize=360%2C182&ssl=1)
Partial bulking & other warning shots
This morning, I got a question about some, but not all, of a mailing going into the bulk folder at a large ISP. “What does it mean when they do that? What should we do?” Most think sending mail to the bulk folder is an “all or nothing” proposition. They know there is a problem
Number 11 is a nice place to be
Sometimes we can get too close to something. So close, in fact, that we take comments the wrong way so that they become insults that they were never intended to be. A couple of years ago, a member of the postmaster staff at a large, North American ISP said to a group of ESP people:
Bigger Is Not Always Better
Delivery professionals have told clients for years that a bigger list is not always better. We have been telling people that mailing people for the sake of mailing people is not a winning strategy. We have advocated mailing to engaged subscribers while letting the deadwood disappear. For years, we have suffered (not so) silently as
![scrabble pieces on white surface](https://i0.wp.com/www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/07/pexels-photo-10176834.jpeg?resize=360%2C182&ssl=1)
Inertia Is Not Email Marketing
The people at AlchemyWorx published an article titled “Getting real about inactive subscribers.” AlchemyWorx, Getting Real About Inactive Subscribers, AlchemyWorx (2010), https://web.archive.org/web/20100707102154/http://www.alchemyworx.com/e/getting-real-about-inactive-subscribers%20%20 (last visited May 29, 2024). I can only say that it is a “feel good” article. The entire point of the post seems to be to help email marketers feel good about inertia.
![a purple text neon sign](https://i0.wp.com/www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/05/pexels-photo-5550324.jpeg?resize=360%2C182&ssl=1)
Asking for the Impossible: Send Rates
Today’s post is the third in a series on contractual terms that clients want to try to get but usually will be unable to due to reality’s harsh impact. Thus far, we have considered Delivery Service Level Agreements (Mickey Chandler, Asking For The Impossible: SLAs, Spamtacular (2010), http://www.spamtacular.com/2010/05/11/asking-for-the-impossible-slas/ (last visited May 13, 2010).) and inbox