Properly conducting an email reengagement campaign, and following reengagement campaign best practices, is critical to your email deliverability. One misstep and all of your email can start going to the spam folder, if not being outright blocked as "spam". In our knowledge article about How to Revive, Warm Up, and Re-Engage an Old Mailing List without Getting Into Trouble we highlight six points that are key to conducting an effective reengagement campaign: remove non-opening email addresses, make sure your authentication is set up correctly, minimal formatting, compelling subject line, brief content, and be consistent. Below is a real-life reengagement email campaign example, showing how doing this carefully, correctly, and following these points, can lead to success.
Did you know that there are a lot of regular words that can help push your email to the spam folder if everything else isn't squeaky clean? Remember George Carlin's "7 words you can't say on tv"? Well there are a whole lot more words that you can't say in email without risking your email being a candidate for further scrutiny and possibly going to the spam folder. In fact one of the things that is most surprising to many email senders is just how many words there are that, when in their email, and if their email doesn't otherwise adhere to best practices, can trip up the spam filters. They are even more surprised when they learn what some of those words are, because they are very common words, words that seem (and often are) innocent, and yet the spam filters will chew on them, and if your email contains enough of these words, or has these words along with some other factors, they will then spit your email out directly into the spam folder.
Conventional wisdom says that personalizing your email marketing subject lines, such as putting someone's first name in the subject line using tags or other automations, increases the open rate for that email marketing. That may not be the case any longer.
Digital marketing solutions provider Vendasta recently did research on which gets not just better deliverability, but better traction in terms of response: plain text email or HTML email? Their conclusion may surprise you!
We have a customer who sends email out on behalf of a very large, very well known institution in the financial investment world. Some of these mailings lists are paid mailing lists. By which I mean that the users paid to receive these emails. And yet, they still report it as spam. Why would they do this? Here's why.
Increasing email deliverability is both an art and a science, and to really get results, you need to have some expertise in both. And of course, that's one of the reasons that many companies pay someone to do it for them - be it an in-house email deliverability expert, an outside company such as ours, or a combination of both.
We've talked previously about why all the email addresses you send from (i.e. your email's "return address") should really exist. It's because if they don't, you're email is going to get junk foldered, both due to spam complaints, and because ISPs actually test whether your from address exists. But there are some email addresses - used as "From:" addresses - that even if you create them on your system - even if they really do exist - you should just never use.
Have you ever wondered what the majority of your users are using to read their email? The answer may surprise you - even stun you!
Disclaimers. Whether in email, print marketing, or contracts, who reads them? I'll tell you who reads them: spam filters. How often do you think a user reads a message that starts with "You have received this message because you have opted in" or "You received this message due to your subscription" and thinks "Oh! That's right, I did ask for this, so I won't mark it as spam?" Now, how often do you think that a spam filter (or, indeed, a user) sees that and thinks "This must be spam"?