Guidelines For A New Sending Paradigm Part 4 of 5 Build Strong Relationships (H2H)
Sustainable email sending programs in an inherently hostile environment
now require great care and planning. Before considering technical
complexities and marketing tactics, email senders must adopt this basic
paradigm shift. The five guidelines included in this series should become
watchwords for ezine emailers as they incur the risk and responsibility
of sending newsletters or any other repetitive type of email. Part 1 of 5: Treat Email as a True Risk and Cost Center Part 2 of 5: Avoid Collateral Damage Part 3 of 5: Use the Available (Legitimate) Tools and Tactics (M2M) Part 4 of 5: Build Strong Relationships (H2H) Part 5 of 5: Continuously Evaluate Part 4 of 5 Build Strong Relationships (H2H) to keep your communications channels open The term “relationship” in this series
refers to human-based interactions (H2H) that influence email and its
delivery. This human side of the email process is essential. It also
highlights several difficult facts about the email sending environment
encountered today:
- the rules that define and drive the anti-Spam agenda are
imprecise and vague, and thus are more suited for human interpretation
and execution than machine
- the basis for detecting and blocking Spam used by systems
today (e.g. the phenomenology of the message format and sending
pattern) is unrelated to the definition of Spam as commonly used online
and as use in law (permission status of the email) – human
intervention is often required to reconcile this discrepancy
- the automated systems at work in this space display a low
level of sophistication and operation – they are expected to
make significant mistakes and are usually designed to be corrected or
overridden by human actions
To deal with this situation, senders should create
centralized and controlled channels to manage the perceptions and
actions of external parties who can directly affect their sending
capabilities. These external parties include:
- your own ISP or NSP
- major recipient ISPs - where the majority of addresses on your list reside
- the hundreds or thousands of smaller local or corporate networks and ISPs on your list
- Email Service Providers that you use for portions or all of your sending
- email regulatory agencies, industry associations and groups, and self-appointed watchdogs
Relationships with your own ISP/NSPThe old market balance of buyer and seller, service and price,
has been disrupted in today’s ISP and NSP space. In the past,
service providers would compete for your business; offer pricing
advantages and service guarantees – and spend a lot of time
and effort to get your attention. This is still true today, but with a
twist. Now, receipt of even a very small percentage of email
complaints by your ISP/NSP, either directly from recipients or from
third-party services, can cause your Internet service to be terminated.
The decision to terminate is not made by the same people that expended
all that effort to get you as a client, nor by those with financial
reporting responsibility to the ISP’s shareholders. Look
instead to a newly empowered group – often designated
“abuse administrators”. The current importance of abuse administrators, and their
extraordinary authority to terminate accounts, stems largely from the
actions of a small group of third-party anti-Spam activists. The threat
of reputation damage and "collateral damage"
(indiscriminant IP address blocking), have pushed abuse administrators
to the forefront of ISP policy. Thus, while you pay your ISP to work
for you, one portion of the organization autonomously works toward the
elimination of traffic that is alleged to be Spam. If that happens to
be your email traffic, for whatever reason, you have a
problem. The defensive, and potentially adversarial relationship with
your ISP/NSP that this structure imposes has two basic
consequences: 1) Your relationship with your own ISP/NSP should be pushed
to the front of your list of business concerns, with an active program
of communications in place. Your bandwidth sources have moved beyond
being a simple infrastructure “cost of doing
business”, into the area of risk and service
management. 2) Distribution of sourcing (and therefore risk) is key.
Single source ISP/NSP relationships might look cost effective and
easier to manage, but they leave open the possibility of unexpected
service problems without the ready ability to react quickly to
problems. In the final analysis it must be remembered that ISPs are NOT
public utilities, and that the regulatory and policy boundaries
expected from critical infrastructure suppliers do not apply to their
services. Service access risk management, and the investment of time in
building a strong relationship with these suppliers should be a basic
part of every email sending program. Relationships with major recipient ISPs This is what Email Service Providers (ESPs) typically call
“ISP relations”. The most important function of an
ISP relations program is to avoid a termination of sending privileges
to one of the major recipient ISPs (i.e. AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo,
etc). Virtually all ESPs offer some version of ISP relations as a
feature of their service. This feature is implicit in their own efforts
to sustain their own sending channels in the face of potential
blow-back from the actions of any of their clients. Given their
enforced experience, many ESPs are good at this job. Publishers that
send a significant amount of email also typically have a version of
this program in-house, often initiated when they find themselves
blocked from sending to one of their large recipient ISPs. "ISP relationships" means something very
different, and something very specific, at each of the large recipient
ISPs. Broadly, the requirements for a working ISP relations program are
to:
- Knowing what channels and recourse each ISP provides for commercial email senders
- Generating the best sustainable outcomes possible from those channels
- Continuously broadcasting the fact that your company is one of the “good guys”
- Persuading clients (at ESPs) or management (in-house)
that this program actually has a positive impact on email
delivery
Perhaps surprisingly, none of these functions is
particularly easy. In some cases, the problems or behaviors that this
kind of program attempts to manage are not always directly under the
ISP relations manager's control:- While some ISPs are very open and helpful in defining how
commercial senders must behave within their systems (such as AOL),
others are intensely secretive, and provide effectively no data that
would help senders adapt or adjust their email practices.
- Spam control groups at the major ISP can’t know
whether your mailing list is 100% permission-based or not. The metric
of choice today at major ISPs is the ratio of complaints over the
volume of email processed. If your sends exceed a (typically) pre-set
threshold of complaints (often determined over a pre-set period of
time) then you are simply not one of the “good
guys”, whatever you say.
- An increased level of complaints can come from any of a
legion of issues with your list, your message creative or formatting,
or from tagalong elements to your mailing (such as an outside
advertiser, or a controversial topic in a newsletter, or even just an
unfavorable story in the outside news media). The ISP relations
function often must include the ability to discover why changes in
complaint levels occurred, and to provide assurances to each major ISP
that they won’t happen again. In the complex world of the
Internet this can be a very difficult process indeed.
- In many organizations, the ISP relations manager does not
have an effective influence over the content of email sends, or even
list management practices. This means that these managers often inherit
problems that they cannot actually fix without the active cooperation
of marketing or IT managers.
- It is also under-appreciated that virtually all of the
blocking/filtering systems at the major ISP are hybrid, with a portion
that is under human control, and a portion that is operated
algorithmically. Even with a sustained basic sending relationship,
there are several essentially automatic factors that recipient ISP
administrators do not directly control that can drive down actual
in-box delivery. These are also typically outside the reach of an ISP
relations program. Even completely independent actions by the recipient
ISPs themselves (such as the introduction of the “report this
as Spam” button, or where it is placed on the page) can
dramatically impact the outcomes for many email senders.
The biggest ISP relations challenge for many ezines and
newsletters is coming up with the time and resources needed to maintain
an adequate program of this type. This is one of the strongest
non-technical arguments that can be made for using an outside ESP
program. Also see the Email PhD "ISP
Relations" section for additional
information. Relationships with the smaller local or
corporate networks and ISPs on your list Relationship programs at smaller ISPs is an even more
challenging problem. Unfortunately, it is a process that inherently
absorbs increasing resources for decreasing benefit. Out of necessity,
the approach most publishers take is to:
- array their list by recipient domain
- sort by number of addresses from largest to smallest domain
- set a cut-off point at some defined percentage of their list to be covered under direct ISP relations
- leave the rest of the list to the effectiveness of their M2M solutions and (frankly) random chance
With B2C lists address distributions are typically weighted
heavily toward the major consumer ISPs, so the problem of smaller ISPs
appears less dramatic. Even so, a large portion of most B2C lists
resides at low frequency domains inaccessible to intensive ISP
relations efforts.B2B lists are typically more problematic in that they can
have a very “flat” distribution, so the number of
domains and contacts to be covered can be prohibitively large. The most common solution to the “few addresses per
domain” problem is to take a classical
"exceptions" approach to management. The sender
primarily relies on technical sending strategies for their delivery,
and uses some form of enhanced reporting (typically server level data)
to identify problem domains. These domains can then be identified and
treated as exceptions. The ISP relations manager is thus looking for
problems to solve rather than trying to build continuing high
maintenance relationships with these smaller ISPs. The ability to effectively take this approach resides largely
in the communications and reporting capabilities of the sending system
used, and in the data capture procedures set up by the ISP relations
manager. Without having good capabilities within this area, a
significant portion of most lists will be subject to a variable and
unpredictable delivery profile. Relationships with Email Service Providers Managers may again be surprised to find that traditional market
forces are disrupted in this seemingly basic relationship. You hire an
ESP to deliver and track your email. You pay them to do this (sometimes
a lot!). It is a highly competitive market, so the ESPs appear to
really want your business (and if you ask them they will confirm this).
Then one day they show up and say that they can no longer accept your
email. The reason this happens is (unfortunately) obvious. ESPs,
because of their position in the sending/delivery chain have become the
natural settling point for many of the worst problems in an admittedly
troubled industry. Because of this they have also necessarily become
good at solving problems, or as the case may be, at cutting their
losses. This may mean eliminating accounts that threaten their
continued operation. To get a good quality ESP to take on many of the
organizational, technical, and political problems of sending your email
now often requires a strange role reversal. In this new paradigm your
company is the seller; selling its policies, protections, and its
responsiveness to the ESP. That is because to a meaningful degree the
ESP is going to inherit everything that is wrong with you content, your
list, or your sending strategy. And they do so for each client that
they accept. If they don’t manage this process very
carefully, they can be shut down (or worse, face a creeping decay in
effectiveness) for all their clients. Because ESPs are so accessible and visible (unlike the
“hidden” Spammer population) they generally take a
very disproportionate share of the blame for the mail-box flooding
problem. They are subject to blocking and shutdown of their own and
their client’s email and Internet access, potentially on the
basis of a single instance of only one of their client’s
sends. Some ESPs know a lot about how to get mail delivered while
staying out of trouble. Others don’t. Always investigate an
ESP's basic approach and strategy for delivery. If you find an ESP with
the expertise and skills necessary to handle your email delivery
requirements, then you can expect to be required to be responsive and
helpful in resolving problems that occur because of your account. Your
ESP generally will be very good at defining what information they need,
what policies you need to institute, and what channels of communication
you need to maintain to keep the relationship productive and
effective. Relationships with email regulatory agencies,
industry associations and groups, and self-appointed
watchdogs This may be the subtlest of the relationship categories, where
each publisher needs to craft a unique strategy to fit its own
circumstances. Options here generally follow the old bureaucratic
dictum that you either want to be on the inside, or so far outside as
to be off the radar screen altogether. Some large ESPs, for example, have opted to be on the inside;
presenting themselves as major Spam fighters. Wherever that has been
resisted by the self-appointed Spam-policing community they have
created a new inside (or organization) to make their position known.
Many of the largest companies and ESPs have also rushed to become
certified “good guys” through the use of reputation
services, but this trend has moderated somewhat due to what can
conservatively be called “complex” political and
practical considerations. Generally there remains a vast gulf of
differences between the definitions, goals, and objectives of the
different power blocks within the anti-Spam political space. Regulatory agencies: The rules and requirements for compliance have become much
clearer with the passage of broad legislation in many national
jurisdictions. In the US this legislation sets standards that attentive
companies can, in most cases, readily achieve. By far the most
significant regulatory agency in the US for email senders is the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and excellent guidance for senders can
be gotten from their Web site. It is important for publishers to realize that the laws
governing email in different countries vary significantly from those in
the US, and that a compliance review should be undertaken before
sending any commercial email that lands outside the US. Also see the Email PhD "Compliance"
section for additional information. Industry groups and associations: These advocates tend to promote standards and ideals that are
sourced from industry, which in this environment usually means the
anti-Spam software companies, the ESPs, or the large recipient ISPs.
Often the standards for being a “member in good
standing” have little to do with regulatory compliance.
Usually, it has more to do with either supporting a particular
commercial agenda, or behaving in a way that makes sorting, filtering,
and blocking email easier to accomplish. Memberships within this level of organization also tend to be
relatively expensive, but (again) because of the lack of consensus even
within commercial elements, these memberships often do not carry much
demonstrable practical benefit (for example, membership in a major
email industry association does not inherently confer a broad spectrum
increase in email delivery success), so cost/benefit should be
carefully analyzed. Self-appointed watchdogs: Following the lead of many regulators and most of the major
commercial interests online, publishers using email for digital
communications are virtually always best advised to keep their distance
from this community. From anonymous blacklists to vigilante style citizen action
cybergroups, these types of organizations represent an enormous range
of diverse views about the ”proper” use of the
Internet, including, significantly, the types of individual actions and
enforcement appropriate within a largely unregulated
“commons”. This is a space that is chaotic, with more than its fair
share of ideologues and frankly scary organizations. A prime difficulty
lies in the fact that many of these groups do not agree with current US
legislation, or even with the additional policies and tests imposed by
large Internet organizations. In the tug of war of ideas that is taking
place online, this sector has developed a general reputation for being
confrontational rather than cooperative, and negative publicity can be
expected from many such associations. Unfortunately, it has become a minor badge of sophistication
and a recognized form of empowerment within the Internet literati to
support and use radical blacklists and other resources that come from
this community. IT employees at many major companies covertly run the
Spam traps and host the honey pots that are in fact the source of so
much commercial email disruption. Many smaller network administrators
preferentially use information from within this community to inform
their filtering and blocking systems. It is safe to say that this
dissenting population will have a significant influence on email
sending and delivery into the foreseeable future. Conclusions: The network of human-to-human (H2H) relationships extending from
your own hosting facilities to your recipients ISPs has become critical
to sustaining open channels of email communications. The algorithmic
and programmatic systems in place to control email Spam are so fallible
and subject to error that without these H2H relationships anyone's
email channels can be expected to begin to fail. At a minimum, building
and maintaining open and friendly ISP relations wherever possible
allows “people” to get in and adjust for the
conceptual, design and implementation limitations of current anti-Spam
technology. Copyright © by Email Ph.D. All Right Reserved.
Tim Starzl is the chief editor of Email Ph.D., an informational Web site dedicated to improving email delivery for all permission-based senders. With years of experience in email sending system design, high volume sending, and high precision tracking systems Mr. Starzl provides practical working advice for a difficult and rapidly changing environment. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/ |