Are political email campaigns known for poor list acquisition and sharing practices, and is there published evidence to support this belief?

Key findings

• Perceived poor practices: There's a strong belief among email deliverability experts that political campaigns often engage in questionable email practices, including list sharing and buying, and a general sloppiness in address acquisition.
• Lack of published evidence: Finding direct, evidence-based articles specifically detailing and comparing political email practices to general marketing practices is challenging.
• Deliverability metrics focus: Existing reports, such as those historically published by Return Path, tend to focus on deliverability benchmarks like inbox placement rates, which can indirectly point to problematic list acquisition methods.
• Quantity over quality: Political campaigns often prioritize the size of their email list over the quality of subscriber consent or engagement, which significantly impacts deliverability and sender reputation.
• Enforcement challenges: ESPs face difficulties in enforcing best practices due to political campaigns' willingness to switch providers if stringent rules are applied, or their perceived regulatory exemptions.

Key considerations

• Data-driven insights: Analyzing trends in email metrics, even without direct data on acquisition methods, can provide strong indications of underlying list quality issues.
• Internal friction: Deliverability professionals within political organizations often struggle to implement best practices due to pressure from high-level campaign staff.
• Regulatory loopholes: Political email may operate under different regulatory frameworks, which some campaigns interpret as an excuse for more aggressive or less compliant practices. This can lead to political emails going to spam.
• Reputation impact: Poor list practices significantly damage sender reputation, potentially leading to widespread blocklisting or blocklist placement for the sender's IP or domain.
• Educational gap: There's a recognized lack of email deliverability knowledge among political campaign staff, which contributes to ongoing issues. For more on this, consider research on misinformation online. Understanding why purchased email lists cause deliverability issues can also provide context.

Key opinions

• Experience over articles: Many marketers haven't found published articles on political email subscription practices, relying instead on personal experience which often confirms negative perceptions.
• Difficult clients: Some political campaigns are perceived as challenging clients, prone to sending to random lists and reacting negatively when their sending practices result in AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) violations.
• Deliverability knowledge gap: Consultants and staff within the political and nonprofit sectors often lack fundamental knowledge about email deliverability.
• Internal pressure on staff: Staff find it difficult to refuse requests from high-level office-holders to swap or upload large, potentially unverified, email lists.
• Volume over engagement: The belief that larger email lists will guarantee campaign goals is prevalent, often at the expense of list quality and email deliverability.
• Blaming the platform: Campaign managers frequently blame the email platform for deliverability issues, rather than acknowledging problems with their own old or poorly acquired lists. Understanding how a bad email list affects open rates is crucial.

Key considerations

• Need for education: There's a strong call for more education and accessible tools to help political campaign staff understand and implement proper deliverability practices.
• Consequence enforcement: Marketers believe that significant financial penalties or high-profile legal actions against campaigns could be the catalyst for improved practices.
• Perceived exemption: The idea that political campaigns are somehow exempt from standard email rules, such as those related to CAN-SPAM, remains a significant hurdle to overcome. This impacts ESPs adding addresses without consent.
• Resource allocation: Political and nonprofit organizations often lack dedicated email deliverability personnel, with digital staff juggling multiple roles.
• ESP leadership: ESPs are seen as needing to lead the charge in enforcing best practices, even if it means campaigns temporarily migrate to less compliant competitors. This aligns with broader concerns about fake news and misinformation.

Key opinions

• Anecdotal consensus: Experts widely believe that political campaigns exhibit worse email practices in terms of list sharing, buying, and general acquisition sloppiness, though published proof remains elusive.
• Deliverability statistics: Return Path's (now Validity) yearly reports often show that political and nonprofit sectors experience lower inbox placement rates across major email providers.
• Algorithmic enforcement: Some ESPs are developing and implementing algorithms, similar to Mailchimp's Omnivore, to detect and reject poor quality lists, including those that appear swapped or unopted-in. This helps how email blacklists work.
• Volume-centric mindset: A pervasive belief in political campaigns is that reaching goals is directly proportional to the volume of emails sent, irrespective of list quality.
• CAN-SPAM exemptions: Political entities often cite perceived exemptions from rules like CAN-SPAM, which allows them to hide behind less stringent practices.
• Impact of financial repercussions: Experts suggest that only significant financial losses or high-profile legal action will truly motivate political campaigns to adopt email best practices. This directly relates to the effectiveness of political campaigning.

Key considerations

• Data limitations: One significant challenge is the lack of publicly available data that directly compares political email list acquisition and sharing to standard commercial marketing practices.
• ESPs as gatekeepers: ESPs are seen as critical in leading the change by consistently enforcing acceptable use policies, even if it means some clients migrate to less responsible competitors.
• Financial incentives: The most effective way to modify political campaign behavior is to make poor deliverability and blacklisting financially painful, especially during critical fundraising periods.
• Political interference: There is concern that political entities might try to legislate against legitimate ISP blocking or content filtering mechanisms if their email efforts are significantly hindered.
• Specialized expertise: Many political campaigns lack dedicated email deliverability experts, often relying on digital generalists who may not have the deep knowledge required. This is a common factor in why political emails end up in spam.

Key findings

• Indirect evidence: Some academic research touches upon the prevalence of misinformation online, which implies broad outreach efforts that may include email, but it does not delve into the specifics of list practices.
• Campaign effectiveness studies: Academic studies often analyze the overall effectiveness of political campaigns and their digital outreach, but typically without detailed examination of list sourcing or sharing methods.
• Industry deliverability benchmarks: General industry reports, like historical data from ReturnPath, provide aggregate deliverability statistics across sectors, often showing lower inbox rates for political and nonprofit organizations.
• Regulatory differences: The legal framework for political email in some countries, such as the US (e.g., FEC regulations), can differ from commercial email laws, contributing to varied practices and perceived exemptions.
• Misinformation concerns: Research highlights that email and other online platforms can be vectors for misinformation, prompting increased scrutiny from platform providers and necessitating careful content filtering.

Key considerations

• Absence of direct studies: There is a notable gap in direct, published academic or industry studies that specifically compare the list acquisition and sharing practices of political emailers to those of commercial marketers.
• Privacy implications: The sharing of voter data and political contact lists raises significant privacy concerns that are often not fully explored within standard email deliverability documentation.
• Platform responsibility: Major email service providers are increasingly scrutinizing political email due to concerns about misinformation and user experience, leading to new policies and compliance requirements. This is where research on truth and misinformation becomes relevant.
• Self-regulation vs. enforcement: The challenge for the email industry lies in whether political entities will voluntarily improve their practices or if more stringent enforcement from ISPs and ESPs will be necessary. Implementing DMARC, SPF, and DKIM can help.
• User perception: The perceived invasiveness of political emails, often linked to opaque list acquisition methods, contributes to higher spam complaints and reduced engagement. For solutions, see why emails go to spam.