Spam filters are evil! Have you ever heard of a single company sending out email campaigns that has never experienced a deliverability problem? I don't think so. In the life of any company there have been more or less big problems.
A few years ago, a common reaction was to change IP addresses, and sometimes that was enough to regain virginity. By the way, spammers do not do otherwise. As soon as ISPs and other webmails change their behavior and manage to catch them in their nets, they look for any way to get back on the scene.
And you know what? Most advertisers (who think they're legitimate) apply the same rule. "I'm filtered... hoooo the bad guys! I've always done it this way though. I'll change a few commas to get around those s******."
Spammers bypass spam filters. Others improve their engagement.
ENGAGEMENT! As everyone has been saying for a few years now, the quality of engagement is PRIMORITY for good deliverability. Without engagement, your subscribers will classify your emails as spam. Without engagement, your recipients will not open your emails. Without permission verification (which is engagement), you will hit spamtrap. With 100% ad/sales oriented content... no engagement.
In your opinion, how can an ISP or a webmail know if a sender is legitimate or not? How can it define if an email is wanted by the recipient? The answer is:
Need help?
Reading content isn't everything. The best way is to talk to us.
- Measure of complaint rate generated;
- Analysis of the recipient's reaction via open and click rates;
- Measuring the number of spamtraps affected;
- Checking the content of your emails.
So yes, we will have to clean up your inactives (and start as soon as possible), you'll have to improve your permission gathering processes during registration, start sending something other than advertising, simplify your registration processes, ... and therefore, probably reduce the volume of emails you send to each campaign and reduce the number of leads gathered by your different acquisition channels. But it will be for the benefit of better performance ... and a better ROI.
How do I know if it's effective?
Today, the most reliable method to detect a problem of deliverability or a systematic placement in the spam box is probably to compare the opening rate of your campaigns by destination. If you are on average at 20% of opening but only at 2% at Gmail, it means that your emails arrive mostly in the spam box at Gmail.
In the other way, when you implement a set of corrective actions to improve the engagement of your recipients with your campaigns, the figure to follow is, among others, the volume of clicks generated by all your campaigns (over a week or a month for example). By reducing the potential "not engaged" (inactives, reinforcement of permission, taking into account the double optin, ...) the overall deliverability of your emails should improve (unless you have really done too many stupid things and you are unrecoverable). And if you have done your job well, even if you reduce the number of emails sent, the volume of clicks should not decrease, but on the contrary... increase! Of course, don't expect to see this increase overnight. If you can be penalized in a few seconds for bad practices, raising your reputation as a sender is a long-term job.
