Inactive e-mail users?

Kent Gilliam:

Lauren,

I moved your question to the Data Management & Integration sub-community. Hopefully someone will see your post here.

I'm really interested in hearing what others have say about this because I've never worked with an organization that wanted to remove usable emails. I understand that there is a cost increase to jump up to the next contract level for email addresses but I always see that as a must-do because of your successful housefile building. Here is the only thread I could find in the Community: http://community.customer.convio.com/message/10936#10936

Whatever you do I recommend a clear, well-defined policy for why you would remove a usable email address. You just never know when you might hit someone with a subject line or topic one day that moves a person to give. They gave you their email because they trusted you so I would be more likely to think they are still aware of you, you just need to wake them up.

Kent

I'd be interested in how people handle these as well.

We don't remove them, but instead have set up queries so that we can filter them out of emails as needed.   Having them in all communications drags down the open and action rates and increases our unsubscribe totals, but I'm not comfortable with removing them totally.  Instead, we primarily send them stewardship emails, like eNewsletters, giveaways, etc.   Although some will open the emails, very rarely do they click through or take an action.   My thinking is that at least we're reaching out, so not losing an opportunity.  But, I do wonder if we should just forget about them totally.

Alex Bernardin:

I've been grappling with this as well. One approach that I've started to explore is using Engagement Factors - I set up a query that assigns engagement points based on opening or clicking an email. It's not retroactive, but will hopefully let me gauge this type of engagement better over the long-haul.