Summary
Understanding email open rate benchmarks from 2018, particularly for Gmail, presents a unique challenge. While various industry reports provide general statistics, these often lack the granular detail needed for specific analysis, especially when trying to pinpoint the impact of particular events or changes like those observed in April 2018. The challenge is compounded by the varying data collection methodologies and hygiene practices of different senders.
Key findings
- General benchmarks: Across industries, average email open rates in 2018 typically ranged between 15% and 25%, with variations depending on sector, audience, and email type.
- Gmail specifics: Gmail's open rates are often influenced by its sophisticated filtering algorithms and user engagement metrics, which prioritize inbox placement based on sender reputation and recipient interaction. This means generalized benchmarks may not directly reflect Gmail performance.
- Data limitations: Many public benchmark reports aggregate data across all internet service providers (ISPs) and do not always break down performance by individual providers like Gmail.
- Impact of engagement: Open rates are highly sensitive to email list hygiene, sender reputation, and personalization efforts. Senders with cleaner lists and more relevant content typically see higher engagement.
Key considerations
- Contextual analysis: When reviewing 2018 data, consider external factors like GDPR implementation, which began in May 2018, potentially impacting list sizes and engagement from previous consent practices. For more on this, see how GDPR affected deliverability trends.
- Specific date ranges: Finding benchmarks for a precise month like April 2018 is challenging. Most reports offer quarterly or annual averages rather than monthly breakdowns.
- Industry nuances: Different industries have vastly different acceptable open rates. A 15% open rate might be excellent in one sector and poor in another. General benchmarks from sources like Mailchimp's email marketing benchmarks can provide a starting point.
- Internal vs. external benchmarks: Prioritize your own historical performance as a primary benchmark. Year-over-year or month-over-month comparisons of your own Gmail-specific data will offer the most relevant insights into trends and changes. To understand how Gmail tracks engagement, review how Gmail tracks email engagement.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often discuss open rates with a mix of practical experience and a desire for actionable data. While they seek benchmarks to understand their performance relative to others, they also recognize the significant variables that make direct comparisons difficult. The consensus leans towards internal trend analysis over strict adherence to industry averages, especially for specific timeframes or ISPs like Gmail.
Key opinions
- Need for specific data: Marketers frequently express a need for granular open rate data, such as per-ISP or per-month, to diagnose specific performance changes, as highlighted by a user seeking April 2018 Gmail rates.
- Data normalization challenges: Many marketers acknowledge that comparing open rates across diverse senders is problematic due to differing data hygiene practices and list compositions.
- Industry comparison skepticism: There's a healthy skepticism about generalized industry benchmarks, particularly when they present comparisons across verticals without adequately accounting for unique sending behaviors.
- Focus on personal trends: A common sentiment is that a marketer's own historical performance is the most reliable benchmark for their specific program.
Key considerations
- Data sourcing: Marketers should leverage their ESP's reporting for their own open rate data, as well as broader reports for context, like the MailPoet benchmark data.
- Beyond the open: While important, open rates are just one metric. Marketers should also consider click-through rates (CTR) and conversion rates for a holistic view of campaign success. Learn more about how to increase your email click-through rate.
- Identifying artificial opens: With the rise of privacy features and spam filter pre-fetching, actual human opens can be obscured. Marketers need to be aware of how to identify artificial email opens and clicks to interpret their data accurately.
- Industry trends: Even with caveats, understanding general industry trends, such as those covered by GetResponse's benchmarks, can provide useful context for broader strategy.
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests that finding specific historical open rates, such as those from April 2018, can be challenging without access to extensive, normalized datasets. The user was specifically looking for Gmail rates to understand if a change they observed was widespread across other senders during that period. This highlights a common challenge for marketers seeking very precise benchmark data for targeted analysis.
Marketer from Quora notes that good opening rates can vary significantly, with specialists suggesting around 10% as a general benchmark for typical emails. For cold emails, however, a higher target of at least 30% is often considered favorable. This shows how context profoundly influences what constitutes a good open rate for marketers.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability and analytics often caution against over-reliance on generalized open rate benchmarks. They emphasize the critical role of data hygiene, list segmentation, and the unique sending practices of each business in shaping actual performance. For Gmail, their complex filtering systems and focus on user engagement make a direct comparison to broad industry averages especially misleading.
Key opinions
- Normalization difficulties: Experts highlight that normalizing open rate data for hygiene practices is a significant challenge, making direct comparisons between different senders or industries less reliable. Aggregated data may not accurately reflect diverse sending universes.
- Variability of results: There's a strong consensus that open rates vary widely due to different email approaches, making it tricky to quote universal industry statistics without careful consideration.
- Beyond the numbers: Some experts suggest that simply achieving high numbers might not always indicate true success, especially if it's due to aggressive list hygiene that removes unengaged subscribers, making the remaining list appear artificially engaged.
- Industry comparison pitfalls: Comparisons across industries can be misleading if the underlying data is not properly normalized for factors like mailing list practices, potentially misrepresenting which verticals genuinely achieve the best engagement.
Key considerations
- Holistic view: Rather than fixating on a single metric, deliverability experts advocate for a comprehensive analysis of engagement, including clicks, conversions, and subscriber behavior, especially given the evolving nature of email open tracking. This can help diagnose and improve overall deliverability.
- Self-assessment: Experts advise senders to 'take their own pulse' by focusing on their individual performance trends over time, rather than overly worrying about external benchmarks. Your own data provides the most relevant context.
- Deliverability impact: Low open rates, especially for Gmail, can signal underlying deliverability issues. It is crucial to monitor email engagement thresholds for deliverability monitoring and address them promptly, as detailed in Salesforce's email marketing benchmarks.
- Dynamic benchmarks: Given the dynamic nature of inbox providers and user privacy features (like Apple Mail Privacy Protection), historical open rate benchmarks from 2018 must be interpreted with an understanding of these shifts in measurement accuracy.
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks explains that normalizing open rate data for varying data and hygiene practices is a significant challenge when trying to compare performance across different senders. If certain large clients aggressively remove unengaged subscribers, their higher open rates might reflect very different mailing practices than those who do not. This highlights the need for careful interpretation of aggregated benchmark data.
Email expert from SpamResource recommends that senders focus on their internal metrics and year-over-year trends rather than becoming fixated on external benchmarks. Each sender's unique audience and sending practices mean that industry averages may not accurately reflect optimal performance. This advice emphasizes a pragmatic approach to performance evaluation.
What the documentation says
Official reports and documentation from major email service providers (ESPs) and industry research firms are primary sources for email marketing benchmarks. These typically offer aggregated data across their client bases, categorized by industry, region, and sometimes email type. While valuable for broad trends, they often lack the granularity for specific monthly performance or detailed ISP breakdowns like Gmail, especially from years like 2018.
Key findings
- Annual and quarterly reports: Major ESPs regularly publish reports (e.g., IBM's 2018 report, Cheetah Digital Q2 2018 report) that provide broad industry benchmarks for open rates, click rates, and other KPIs.
- Industry variation: Documentation consistently shows significant variance in open rates across different industries, from retail to non-profit, underscoring that a good rate is highly context-dependent.
- Global vs. regional: Some reports provide regional breakdowns (e.g., North America), acknowledging that geographic location can influence email engagement metrics.
- Metrics beyond open rates: Many reports also include metrics such as click-to-open rates (CTOR), unique click rates, and transaction rates, emphasizing a broader view of email campaign effectiveness.
Key considerations
- Source reliability: When using benchmark data, always consider the source and its methodology. Reports from reputable ESPs or research firms that explicitly detail their data collection are more reliable. IBM, for example, is a known source for 2018 email marketing data (example link: IBM Marketing Cloud Benchmark Report).
- Data granularity: Most documentation provides averages, making it challenging to find specific data for a single month like April 2018 or for a single ISP like Gmail. Understand that these reports offer trends, not precise snapshots. For improving Gmail deliverability, consult guides on improving Gmail deliverability.
- Methodology review: Pay attention to the methodology sections of reports to understand how the data was collected, which countries or industries were included, and any limitations. This helps interpret the applicability of the benchmarks to your specific situation.
- Contextual application: Use documented benchmarks as a general reference for broad trends, but always prioritize your own internal performance data for setting goals and evaluating specific campaigns. For more insights on this, refer to why your email deliverability rate might be wrong.
Cheetah Digital's Q2 2018 Email & Mobile Benchmark Report analyzes key performance indicators, including open, click-to-open, and unique click rates, from North American clients. This report serves as a valuable resource for comparing email programs against peer performance during that specific quarter. It indicates a trend of comprehensive data collection across various email metrics.
Mailchimp's email marketing benchmarks highlight the importance of crafting compelling subject lines to boost email open rates. They also emphasize optimizing audience segmentation for enhanced engagement, providing data that showcases the impact of these strategies on overall performance. This documentation points to best practices that consistently influence open rates.
