Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

LashBack Presentation at Mailcon July 2018

496 views

Published on

Updates and Insights on an Evolving Market
Peter Wilson - CEO, LashBack
Mailcon, New York
July 2018

LashBack’s President and CEO, Peter Wilson, recently had the honor of speaking at Mailcon in New York City. His presentation included high-level insights on the email market ranging from domain and IP relationships to quality and inboxing trends.
“There are meaningful variances in the approaches used by mail providers and ESPs,” Wilson says in the presentation. “You need the right data and insights to maximize inboxing.” Also featured in the presentation are detailed graphics based on real data to show how unexpected relationships can lead to actionable opportunities.

About LashBack®
Founded in 2003 by marketers with a vision of how to make email more safe and effective, LashBack® has grown to become an authority and go-to resource for email compliance and intelligence.
LashBack® is a patent-holder with a long history of innovation, collecting and leveraging data, and advocating for best practices. We continue to focus on creative ways to bring insights to our clients with services spanning every aspect of email marketing and a recent expansion into additional digital marketing channels. Whether you represent a large brand or are just getting started -- are more focused on risk or growth -- we have the information and services to help you accomplish your objectives.

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

LashBack Presentation at Mailcon July 2018

  1. 1. Updates and Insights on an Evolving Market Peter Wilson - CEO, LashBack Mailcon, New York July 2018
  2. 2. July 2018 2 LashBack background • Based in St. Louis and providing services for more than a decade • 100+ major brands, agencies and networks as clients • Providing critical visibility and information to businesses that use email marketing  Identify and manage compliance issues  Protect your brands and data  Assess quality, delivery and partners  Identify risks and opportunities OMAC
  3. 3. 3 Disclaimer July 2018 All of the observations in this presentation are based on data received and analyzed by LashBack. Presentations are intended for educational purposes only and do not replace independent professional judgment. The observations may be influenced by multiple factors including the date, source, and size of the data set and your results or experience may be meaningfully different. We do not make any representations or offer any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. The information contained herein may be subject to copyright protection; we believe that LashBack’s use of information and images herein constitutes fair use, but any use of this content, including work created by LashBack, may require the express written permission of the copyright holder. We are strong advocates for quality email marketing and do not advocate the use of any technique or practice in a vacuum or that is counter to established best practices. Any action you take upon the information presented is strictly at your own risk.
  4. 4. July 2018 4 Discussion today We love data-driven insights. In a relatively short amount of time, we wanted to share some high-level perspective and explore a handful of relationships that, we hope, show the power of data and analytics. • The universe and list overlap • High-level quality and inboxing trends • Domains, IPs and delivery • A few ESP trends and insights  Concluding thoughts and takeaways
  5. 5. July 2018 6 The universe and list overlap • Email marketing is more technical, fascinating and interrelated than many people recognize • Visualizations can be a powerful tool to see the whole landscape and unexpected relationships • Unexpected relationships can lead to actionable opportunities Visualizations use Gephi (gephi.org) with Force Atlas layout plugin
  6. 6. In this image: • The red dots represent unique domains catalogued in a day • The white lines connecting the dots show where we saw traffic flowing from one domain (redirecting) to another domain • The groups that connect to a single point are publisher domains redirecting through a single tracker/platform • Domains on the outside edge either didn't redirect anywhere or were only seen redirecting to themselves Visualization of email traffic – one day of domain connections July 2018 7
  7. 7. In this image, you can see about two days’ worth of email panel traffic plotted on a world map by IP geolocation. Visualization of email traffic – global email traffic July 2018 8
  8. 8. In this image: • The red dots are individual recipients and the blue dots are domains. • If blue dots are closer together, they're sending to the same recipients. Visualization of email traffic – list overlap July 2018 9
  9. 9. 10 Visualization of email traffic – list overlap, AARP close-up July 2018 aarp.org
  10. 10. 11 Visualization of email traffic – list overlap, AARP wide view July 2018 In this image: • You can see AARP’s domain relative to all recipients, traffic and domains
  11. 11. 12 Visualization of email traffic – list overlap, AARP email traffic July 2018 In this image: • You can see a sample of AARP’s email sending with the white lines ending at distinct “To” addresses
  12. 12. Understanding the list overlap visualization - some logical proximities July 2018 13
  13. 13. 14 Unexpected overlap points to opportunities July 2018 Who are among the senders that meaningfully overlap with AARP? PinchMe.com and CaesarsGames- News.com each have ~15% overlap with AARP
  14. 14. In this image: • You can see the proximity of Match and AARP • We are going to look closer at some of the domains around Match.com Visualization of email traffic – wide view of AARP and Match.com aarp.org match.com July 2018 15
  15. 15. Visualization of email traffic – list overlap of dating and job sites July 2018 16 • Dating sites are circled in yellow • Job sites are circled in blue  There is heavy overlap between dating and employment-related sites.
  16. 16. Visualization of email traffic – overlapping non-dating, non-job sites What other sites and verticals overlap with jobs and dating? • Apartments • Media and entertainment (iHeart Radio, WWE) • Branded resource sites (Quora.com, HuskerOffers.com) July 2018 17
  17. 17. July 2018 18 High-level quality and inboxing trends • What is the overall state of, and trend in, email quality? • What is the overall trend in inboxing, by email provider, over the same time period? • How does frequency (messages per recipient) impact delivery and how does it vary by email provider?
  18. 18. 19 The LashBack Global Quality Index (GQI) July 2018 • LashBack has developed a quality index using criteria including: • Blacklisted sending domains and IPs • The absence of a clear text unsubscribe • The absence of a list unsubscribe header • Deceptive subject lines • Forged send dates • Authentication failures • The presence of vulgarity • Delivery • Our clients can custom weight the criteria, but using a basic weighting and large data set, we can provide a unique perspective on the state of, and trends in, overall email quality
  19. 19. 20 Quality and inboxing diverging somewhat over last 8 months July 2018 78.2 76.6 80.2 79.8 80.2 81.4 82.9 83.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 17-Oct 17-Nov 17-Dec 18-Jan 18-Feb 18-Mar 18-Apr 18-May Sum of GQI Sum of Gmail Sum of Microsoft Sum of Yahoo GlobalQualityIndex %inboxing Gmail at 51.3% Down 10.9% Yahoo at 48.4% Up 0.7% Microsoft at 31.7% Down 10.2%
  20. 20. 21 The impact of frequency (ESP messages/recipient/day), May 2018 July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 7 8 1 2 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 8 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Inbox%
  21. 21. 22 The last several months show a similar impact for frequency July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo March April May June
  22. 22. 23 Domains, IPs and inboxing July 2018 It is generally understood that the relationship between domains and IPs, and their age, impacts delivery, but: • What does the data tell us about the relationships and age today? • How does it vary by email provider? • Are there key thresholds?
  23. 23. 24 The impact of domains per IP (1-50) on inboxing July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Inbox % versus # of domains per IP (1-50), April & May 2018 Between 9-17 D/IP: inboxing for all three generally improve Between 17-50 D/IP: Gmail and Yahoo delivery improve in a similar pattern, while MSFT declines
  24. 24. 25 The impact of domains per IP (1-10) on inboxing July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Inbox % versus # of domains per IP (1-10), April & May 2018 Between 1-5 D/IP: Yahoo and MSFT inboxing drop meaningfully, while Gmail increases meaningfully Between 5 and 9 D/IP: All three seem to follow a tight pattern and to favor 6
  25. 25. 26 The impact of domains per IP block on inboxing July 2018 Inbox % versus # of domains per IP block (class c subnet), April & May 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Between 1-20 D/IPB: All three generally increase inboxing Between 20-45 D/IPB: MSFT drops ~20, Yahoo drops ~23, Gmail drops ~33
  26. 26. 27 The impact of IPs per domain (opposite metric) on delivery July 2018 Inbox % versus # of IPs per domain (1-100), April & May 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo
  27. 27. 28 The impact of IPs per domain on Gmail delivery July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 Inbox % versus # of IPs per domain (1-100), April & May 2018, Gmail only Between 45-65 IPs/domain seems to receive poor inboxing from Google
  28. 28. 29 The impact of IP blocks per domain on delivery July 2018 Inbox % versus # of IP blocks per domain (1-35), April & May 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Fairly predictable up to 13 IP blocks per domain All three have fairly high volatility above 13 IP blocks per domain
  29. 29. 30 Correlation of IP age (weeks) & inboxing, April & May 2018 July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo
  30. 30. 31 Correlation of IP age (weeks) & inboxing, Feb & March 2018 July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo
  31. 31. 32 Correlation of domain age (weeks) & inboxing, April & May 2018 July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Yahoo and Gmail both seem to prioritize ~5 weeks, while MSFT takes a more “steady build” approach
  32. 32. 33July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Gmail Microsoft Yahoo Correlation of domain age (weeks) & inboxing, Feb & March 2018 A prior period shows a more variability from Gmail, but similar thresholds ~4-8 weeks and a “steady build” by MSFT
  33. 33. 34 A few ESP trends and insights July 2018 • What ESPs are the most effective at inboxing by email provider? • Where are there the most significant changes in the last few months? • A brief look at ESP strategy variances
  34. 34. 35 Top 10 ESPs for Microsoft inbox delivery, May 2018 July 2018 69% 68% 64% 64% 56% 48% 47% 35% 34% 31% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 MailChimp eDialog WhatCounts ConstantContact ExactTarget CampaignMonitor YesMail Listrak SendGrid iContact Top inboxing: 69% (MailChimp) Drop off from #1 to #10: 38% ESPs above 80%: 0
  35. 35. 36 Top 10 ESPs for Yahoo inbox delivery, May 2018 July 2018 95% 95% 94% 87% 87% 83% 79% 79% 76% 75% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 YesMail eDialog ConstantContact Campaigner WhatCounts MailChimp CampaignMonitor Bronto ActiveCampaign ExactTarget Top inboxing: 95% (Yesmail) Drop off from #1 to #10: 20% ESPs above 80%: 6
  36. 36. 37July 2018 Top inboxing: 95% (Yesmail) Drop off from #1 to #10: 19% ESPs above 80%: 5 Top 10 ESPs for Gmail inbox delivery, May 2018
  37. 37. 38 Largest recent changes in ESP inboxing at Microsoft July 2018 8.6% 27.5% 68.7% 7.3% 21.2% 63.6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 AWeber Bronto ConstantContact Inbox% March April May Down 1.3% Down 6.3% Down 5.1%
  38. 38. 39July 2018 79.8% 64.7% 65.5%65.9% 59.1% 54.4% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 iContact Maropost VerticalResponse Inbox% March April May Down 13.9% Down 5.6% Down 11.1% Largest recent changes in ESP inboxing at Yahoo
  39. 39. 40July 2018 70.0% 72.4% 35.0% 72.3% 61.4% 82.5% 45.7% 80.1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Bronto Contactology GetResponse Listrak Inbox% March April May Up 10.1% Down 8.6% Up 7.8% Up 10.7% Largest recent changes in ESP inboxing at Gmail
  40. 40. 41 Two ESPs with fairly distinct strategies July 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 YesMail SubscriberMail ConstantContact eDialog Contactology MailChimp WhatCounts CampaignMonitor CoolerEmail ActiveCampaign AWeber MessageSystems Bronto Infusionsoft Listrak Campaigner ExactTarget iContact VerticalResponse GetResponse SendLabs BlueHornet SendGrid Maropost eROI %ofIPspaceand%ofvolume % of Total Volume % of IP Space Inbox % %inboxing ESP % inboxing % of volume % of IP space MailChimp 79% 3% 41% AWeber 70% 39% 2% Variance 9% 36% 39%
  41. 41. 42 A few takeaways July 2018 • List overlap presents some strong opportunities • Quality and inboxing have diverged somewhat over the last several months, with quality steadily increasing and delivery lower for two of the three major email providers • There are meaningful variances in the approaches used by mail providers and ESPs -- you need the right data and insights to maximize inboxing • Gmail’s approach to inboxing continues to be fairly distinct • Higher frequency to a single recipient can still get good delivery • Gmail does not inbox well between 45 and 65 IPs per domain • A summary of the typical impact of domains per IP on inboxing: Domains/IP 1-5 5-9 9-17 17-50 Microsoft Decreases meaningfully Follows a tight pattern and favors 6 Generally improves Declines Yahoo Gmail Increases meaningfully Gradually improves LashBack Global Quality Index (GQI) 83.5 May 2018 Gmail inboxing 51.3% May 2018 Yahoo inboxing 48.4% May 2018 Microsoft inboxing 31.7% May 2018
  42. 42. 43 A few takeaways, continued July 2018 • Inboxing tends to increase between 1 and 20 domains per IP block, but to fall off significantly between 20 and 30 • More aging of domains and IPs improves delivery, but, with regard to domains, Yahoo and Gmail both seem to prioritize ~4-8 weeks • Microsoft generally has the lowest and most varied delivery by ESPs • Only three ESPs have 80%+ delivery at Yahoo and Gmail: Yesmail, eDialog and Constant Contact  There have been a lot of implemented and proposed changes to the email market over the last 6-12 months. We remain big believers in the ROI of email, but its is a highly technical and evolving market. With greater transparency and analytics, we believe that it can continue to grow and thrive.

×