Comments on: The “Peytz Open Rate”: Introducing a more accurate metrics for calculating unique opened e-mails http://meemoo2.com/2009/09/peytz-email-marketing-open-rate.html/ Michael Leander's Meemoo2 Marketers. Blog about marketing, direct & interactive marketing, permission marketing & the latest in modern technology Fri, 18 May 2012 14:34:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Robin C Kennedy http://meemoo2.com/2009/09/peytz-email-marketing-open-rate.html/#comment-1715 Robin C Kennedy Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:50:54 +0000 http://meemoo2.com/?p=1715#comment-1715 Working in email for over 10 years now it is and has always been tricky to estimate/calculate/report actual "view" or "open" rates and I can see the rationale used above may be more representative at showing interaction levels. Worthy of note may be an in-depth telephone survey conducted by a large UK NGO into email interaction from a single campaign during 2008 - name with held for reasons of confidentiality . By directly contacting a sample of approx.10% of recipients (the sample being more than 5,000 in number) - it showed recall of receipt of the email - and recall of content within the email by 34% more respondents than were shown as having interacted with the message through normal reporting (loading images, or clicking on links in either plain text or HTML messages. Astonishingly, despite a clear graphical "above the fold" request "do not reply to this email", over 33% of recipients did - both with and without interacting with the message in a way visible in reporting. Messages well designed for "images off" will quite often not cause recipients to load images as they can gain all they want without doing so (default settings aside). I can see it would be of benefit to all involved to look at the terms involved and what is empirical data for results - just maybe name them differently. Robin C Kennedy LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinckennedy Working in email for over 10 years now it is and has always been tricky to estimate/calculate/report actual “view” or “open” rates and I can see the rationale used above may be more representative at showing interaction levels.

Worthy of note may be an in-depth telephone survey conducted by a large UK NGO into email interaction from a single campaign during 2008 - name with held for reasons of confidentiality .

By directly contacting a sample of approx.10% of recipients (the sample being more than 5,000 in number) - it showed recall of receipt of the email - and recall of content within the email by 34% more respondents than were shown as having interacted with the message through normal reporting (loading images, or clicking on links in either plain text or HTML messages.

Astonishingly, despite a clear graphical “above the fold” request “do not reply to this email”, over 33% of recipients did - both with and without interacting with the message in a way visible in reporting.

Messages well designed for “images off” will quite often not cause recipients to load images as they can gain all they want without doing so (default settings aside).

I can see it would be of benefit to all involved to look at the terms involved and what is empirical data for results - just maybe name them differently.

Robin C Kennedy
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinckennedy

]]>