For Super Senders that have considered moving to a modern data infrastructure, the biggest hurdle is often the bottom line for basically every business: cost. No matter how much benefit the Marketing team sees from having better data access, if it can’t be directly tied to revenue and a tangible ROI, it’s liable to be passed over for more pressing needs.
Because we’re believers in the immense power of a modern data infrastructure to revolutionize the way marketers use their data, though, we decided to partner up with MarTech Review and LumenData to do a close examination of the costs and savings associated with this sort of investment in order to develop a research-based ROI model so that companies can go into the decision-making process more confidently because they have better information.
A few weeks ago, we shared our research on different types of bounces and their implications for senders. One of our most notable findings pertained to Mailbox Full bounces — specifically, that almost ⅓ of recipients with a Mailbox Full bounce opened another message within the next 12 months.
The surprising results sparked conversation in the industry, with senders and providers debating how to handle Mailbox Full bounces in light of the data. Rumors have also been swirling of Gmail making changes to the way they handle Mailbox Full bounces, so we thought a deeper analysis of the results by ISP was in order.
There may be no industry in which personally relevant cross-channel communication is more of an imperative today than travel and hospitality. There are so many factors at play when it comes to messaging outreach, from timing to customer behavior, and so much fierce competition in the space that generic blasts have virtually no chance of breaking through the noise.
It’s not news to us (nor likely to you) that email marketing is one of the top drivers of customer engagement, yielding the highest potential ROI of all marketing channels. Marketing departments are often building entire budgets around email marketing — but are they optimizing their email efforts to improve deliverability?
According to 250ok, delivery to the inbox for North America was around 88% in 2019, but the DMA reports that some industries saw much lower deliverability. While trends in deliverability and engagement are trending upward as a whole, the industry average doesn’t mean much if your organization’s mail isn’t making the cut.
Nearly all major mailbox providers (MBPs) utilize machine learning to determine how they should filter inbound mail. Their primary goal is to ensure their users are happy, by delivering “wanted” mail to the inbox and keeping everything else out — whether it’s never delivered or filtered to spam. These filters monitor user engagement and sender reputation in real time to determine how mail is routed on their networks.
As a sender, you’ll need to follow some core best practices if you want to be sure your mail reaches the inbox.
One of the questions we hear the most often from marketers when we talk about the importance of MessageGears’ direct connection to your database is this: If connecting directly to the database is so essential and transformative, why don’t your competitors do it too? After all, our most common competitors are massive organizations that would seem to have plenty of money and resources available to be able to do pretty much whatever they want. From the outside, it can be hard to understand why they wouldn’t simply copy MessageGears if there was value in doing so.
So, why don’t they? To really answer that question, we need to take a look at the history of email service providers, and why they’re structured the way they are.