Is there concrete evidence that political campaigns have worse list practices than commercial marketers?

While explicit academic studies comparing political and commercial email practices are scarce, industry experts and email service providers consistently observe that some political campaigns have less rigorous consent practices , including list purchasing and sharing without clear opt-in. Deliverability reports from firms like Return Path (now Validity) have also historically shown lower inbox placement rates for some non-profit and political sectors, indirectly supporting this belief.

How do poor list acquisition practices specifically affect email deliverability for political campaigns?

Poor list acquisition, such as sending to purchased or unverified lists, leads to high bounce rates and spam complaints. These negative signals degrade a sender's reputation, causing ISPs to filter emails to the spam folder or reject them. This is a common reason why political emails end up in spam .

Why do political campaigns often struggle with email deliverability and list quality?

The intense, short-term nature of campaigns often prioritizes immediate reach (and fundraising) over long-term list hygiene. Many campaign staff may also lack specialized knowledge in email deliverability, and current regulations often provide exemptions for political emails, reducing the external pressure to comply with standard marketing best practices.

What steps can be taken to improve email list acquisition and deliverability for political campaigns?

ESPs can enforce stricter AUPs, educate clients on consent-based practices, and implement algorithms to detect and reject low-quality lists. Campaigns should focus on explicit opt-in, segmenting lists, and regularly cleaning them to remove unengaged or invalid addresses. Implementing email authentication protocols is also crucial to maintaining a healthy domain reputation .

Are political email campaigns known for poor list acquisition and sharing practices, and is there published evidence to support this belief? - Compliance - Email deliverability - Knowledge base

The perception that political email campaigns often engage in questionable list acquisition and sharing practices is widespread within the email deliverability community. Many in the industry acknowledge a general laxity in adherence to conventional best practices, often citing anecdotal evidence of purchased lists, lack of consent, and frequent list swapping among campaigns and allied organizations. This can lead to significant deliverability challenges, including high spam rates and IP/domain blocklisting (or blacklisting).

The nature of political campaigning, with its intense focus on voter outreach and fundraising, often prioritizes reach over list hygiene. Unlike commercial marketers who are typically bound by stricter consent regulations and face direct financial consequences for poor deliverability, political campaigns sometimes operate under different regulatory frameworks or perceive themselves as exempt from standard email marketing rules. This difference in operational philosophy can manifest in practices that would be considered detrimental in other sectors.

While there is a strong industry consensus regarding these practices, finding explicit, published, evidence-based studies that directly compare the list acquisition and sharing practices of political campaigns to commercial marketers can be challenging. Much of the evidence often comes from observations by deliverability experts, email service providers (ESPs), and postmasters who regularly encounter the fallout from such practices.

Understanding the unique challenges

Many discussions within the deliverability community highlight the unique challenges posed by political email. Campaign cycles are often short and intense, leading to a quantity-over-quality mindset. This contrasts sharply with the long-term relationship building that commercial email marketers typically aim for. The focus is often on maximizing reach and fundraising potential within a limited timeframe, even if it means sacrificing list quality and long-term sender reputation.

One significant issue is the acquisition of email addresses. While legitimate campaigns build lists through grassroots efforts, volunteer sign-ups, and donation forms, there's a widely held belief that some also resort to less scrupulous methods. This can include obtaining lists from third-party brokers, political action committees (PACs), or even other campaigns, often without explicit consent from the recipients. Sending to a purchased email list inherently carries risks of low engagement, high bounce rates, and spam complaints, which can significantly damage sender reputation.

Another facet of this issue is list sharing. Political entities, including campaigns, party committees, and advocacy groups, often share or exchange their email lists, sometimes without transparent consent mechanisms. While this might be seen as a way to expand reach, it can result in recipients receiving emails they did not directly opt-in for from a new sender, increasing the likelihood of spam complaints and unsubscribes. This practice can erode trust and negatively impact deliverability for political campaigns.

Typical marketing practices vs. political campaign practices

List acquisition

Consent-based acquisition: Focus on explicit opt-ins through forms, subscriptions, and customer interactions, often using double opt-in.
Relationship building: Emphasis on nurturing leads over time, valuing quality of engagement over raw list size.

List sharing

Strict privacy policies: Typically avoid sharing or selling lists due to privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA) and the risk of damaging brand reputation.
Transparency: If sharing occurs (e.g., with affiliates), it is usually disclosed in privacy policies, requiring specific consent.

List acquisition

Aggressive acquisition: May include appending lists from various sources, sometimes with implied or no direct consent, to maximize reach for fundraising or voter outreach.
Quantity over quality: Prioritization of large list sizes to hit fundraising goals or reach many potential voters, often overlooking deliverability metrics.

List sharing

Frequent list exchanges: Common practice to trade lists with other campaigns, party committees, or advocacy groups, creating a complex web of unconsented emails.
Lack of clear consent: Recipients may find themselves on multiple lists without understanding how their address was obtained, leading to frustration and spam complaints.

The impact on deliverability

The effects of poor list practices are well-documented in the deliverability world. Sending to outdated, unverified, or non-opt-in lists often results in higher bounce rates, increased spam complaints, and more spam trap hits. These metrics are closely monitored by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Mailbox Providers (MBPs) to assess sender reputation.

When a sender, whether political or commercial, consistently exhibits these signs of poor sending practices, their emails are more likely to be filtered to the spam folder or rejected entirely. This is why you often hear about emails going to spam. It's not necessarily a bias against political content itself, but a response to the sending behavior associated with some political campaigns.

This challenge is further compounded by the lack of dedicated deliverability professionals within many campaigns. Unlike seasoned email marketers who often have teams focused on improving deliverability rates, political campaign staff often wear many hats, and email deliverability may not be their primary focus or area of expertise. This can lead to reactive rather than proactive management of email programs.

Common indicators of poor list practices

Indicators

High spam complaints: Recipients mark emails as spam because they don't recognize the sender or didn't opt-in, indicating issues with list acquisition or consent management. This directly impacts future open rates.
Elevated bounce rates: A large number of hard bounces suggests an old or low-quality list, often due to purchased or unverified addresses. High unknown rates are common when validating purchased lists.
Spam trap hits: Indicates sending to addresses specifically designed to catch spammers, a clear sign of poor list hygiene and potentially purchased lists.
Blacklist (or blocklist) listings: Frequent appearance on email blocklists due to high complaint rates or spam trap hits.

Published evidence and industry observations

While direct comparative studies are scarce due to the proprietary nature of email data, reports and analyses from leading email intelligence firms often touch upon sector-specific deliverability rates. For instance, past Return Path benchmark reports (now Validity) have indicated that certain sectors, including non-profit and political organizations, sometimes experience lower inbox placement rates compared to others. While these reports don't explicitly detail list acquisition methods, lower inbox rates can be an indirect indicator of poor list quality and sending practices.

Beyond deliverability metrics, the very structure of political messaging can contribute to the perception of poor practices. The urgent, high-volume nature of political communication, especially during peak campaign seasons, often involves repeated asks and emotionally charged content. This, combined with less stringent list management, can lead to a higher volume of unwanted emails reaching inboxes, regardless of their legitimacy, which then contributes to the perception of misinformation and spam concerns.

Academically, research on political campaigning effectiveness, such as studies cited by Vox on campaigning, tends to focus more on the impact of outreach than on the underlying technical practices of list management. However, the qualitative observations from industry professionals consistently point to lax list management as a key factor in the poor deliverability often observed in political email.

The path to better practices

Addressing these challenges requires a shift in mindset within political campaigns, moving away from a sole focus on list size to prioritizing audience engagement and consent. Email Service Providers (ESPs) play a crucial role here, by enforcing stricter Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) and educating their political clients on the importance of list hygiene and proper acquisition methods. They can implement strategies to improve deliverability, regardless of the campaign type.

Furthermore, campaigns should invest in proper email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to build and maintain a strong sender reputation. Implementing these technical safeguards, along with rigorous consent practices, will not only improve inbox placement but also foster better relationships with constituents, leading to more impactful and effective email communication in the long run.

Views from the trenches

Best practices

Implement double opt-in for all new subscribers to ensure explicit consent and reduce spam complaints.

Segment email lists based on engagement levels, sending more frequently to active subscribers and less to inactive ones.

Regularly clean email lists to remove invalid addresses, hard bounces, and inactive subscribers, improving list hygiene.

Common pitfalls

Acquiring email lists from third parties or trading lists with other campaigns without explicit consent.

Failing to implement proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), leading to higher rates of emails being marked as spam.

Prioritizing list size and volume of sends over email engagement metrics and inbox placement rates.

Expert tips

Focus on demonstrating the direct financial impact of poor deliverability and blacklisting to campaign managers to encourage better practices.

Develop internal algorithms or use external tools to identify and reject low-quality or suspicious email lists upon upload.

Advocate for industry-wide changes that hold political campaigns to higher email deliverability standards, similar to commercial senders.

Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks says they rarely see political campaigns with proper subscription practices and often question if they exist at all.

2019-10-02 - Email Geeks

Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks says that many political campaigns just want to email random lists without consequences and react strongly when their sending is suspended due to policy violations.

2019-10-02 - Email Geeks

Improving political email standards

The belief that political email campaigns often have poor list acquisition and sharing practices is indeed prevalent and supported by consistent observations from email deliverability professionals. While direct comparative studies are not always publicly available, the indirect evidence, such as lower inbox placement rates and higher spam complaints reported by email intelligence firms, reinforces this perception.

The unique pressures of political campaigning, coupled with a historical lack of stringent enforcement and education on email best practices, have contributed to these challenges. However, as the email landscape evolves and mailbox providers implement stricter sending requirements, political campaigns will find it increasingly necessary to adopt more responsible and consent-based list management practices to ensure their messages reach their intended audience.