Summary
Political email campaigns are widely perceived, and often confirmed by industry experts, to engage in poor list acquisition and sharing practices. While comprehensive published documentation on specific list-sharing incidents is limited, a wealth of anecdotal evidence from deliverability professionals and ESPs supports this belief. Common issues include the purchasing and swapping of lists, lax consent processes, and a pervasive focus on message quantity over list quality. These practices frequently result in low engagement rates, high spam complaints, frequent placement in spam folders, and violations of Acceptable Use Policies. The unique pressures of political cycles, coupled with a general lack of deliverability expertise within campaigns, contribute to these challenges, often despite regulatory frameworks like CAN-SPAM that can be interpreted to allow broader communication methods.
Key findings
- Confirmed Poor Practices: Industry experts and personal accounts from ESPs corroborate that political campaigns commonly engage in problematic list acquisition, including buying, merging, and sharing lists, often without explicit consent.
- Prioritizing Volume: Political email strategies frequently emphasize high sending volume and rapid list expansion over stringent list hygiene, leading to the use of outdated or poor-quality lists.
- Low Deliverability Metrics: Empirical data from various reports and blocklisting services consistently shows political emails suffer from lower engagement rates, higher complaint rates, and increased spam folder placement compared to other industries.
- Knowledge Gap: A significant challenge is the widespread lack of deliverability knowledge among political campaign staff and consultants, which contributes to persistent poor practices.
- Recipient Dissatisfaction: User feedback and academic research highlight significant recipient annoyance due to unsolicited political emails, indicating a perceived lack of transparent or consensual list acquisition.
Key considerations
- Sender Reputation Impact: Aggressive list growth tactics and poor list hygiene severely damage sender reputation, directly impacting email deliverability and inbox placement.
- AUP Violations: Sending to problematic lists often leads to account suspensions or termination by Email Service Providers due to violations of their Acceptable Use Policies.
- Consent as Core: Despite the rapid pace of political cycles, adhering to strict, permission-based consent practices is critical for sustainable deliverability and building a responsive audience.
- Education is Key: There is a clear need for political organizations to invest in educating their staff and consultants on fundamental email deliverability principles and best practices.
- Navigating Regulatory Landscape: Political campaigns must carefully interpret and navigate regulations like CAN-SPAM to avoid practices that, while potentially permissible, lead to poor recipient experience and deliverability issues.
What email marketers say
13 marketer opinions
Email marketing experts and deliverability professionals widely confirm that political campaigns often employ poor list acquisition and sharing methods. While detailed published evidence on specific list-swapping incidents is scarce, extensive anecdotal accounts from those within the industry, including Email Service Providers (ESPs), validate these concerns. Common problematic practices include the purchasing, swapping, and renting of lists, frequently with inadequate consent, driven by an urgent push for rapid list growth and a focus on message volume over list quality. These approaches consistently lead to significant deliverability issues, such as high spam complaint rates, low engagement, and frequent violations of Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs). A general lack of deliverability expertise among political staff often compounds these challenges.
Key opinions
- Prevalence of Poor Acquisition: Experts and ESPs frequently observe political campaigns using acquired, swapped, or rented email lists, often lacking explicit consent.
- Volume-Driven Strategy: The intense pressure of political cycles often prioritizes rapid list growth and high sending volumes over meticulous list quality and hygiene.
- Widespread Deliverability Issues: Aggressive sending practices result in high spam complaint rates, low engagement metrics, and increased email delivery to spam folders.
- Lack of Deliverability Expertise: A significant challenge is the limited understanding of email deliverability best practices among political staff and consultants.
- Public Perception of Spam: Many recipients perceive political emails as unsolicited, indicating a broad belief in non-transparent or non-consensual list acquisition.
- Systemic List Sharing: Reports confirm the prevalent practice of sharing and renting donor and voter lists between political entities, often without granular recipient consent.
Key considerations
- Protecting Sender Reputation: Aggressive acquisition and poor list hygiene severely harm sender reputation, leading to deliverability challenges and impaired inbox placement.
- Avoiding AUP Breaches: Sending to non-consensual or low-quality lists frequently results in account suspensions or terminations by ESPs due to Acceptable Use Policy violations.
- Emphasizing Consent: Prioritizing explicit, verifiable consent for all list acquisition is essential for long-term deliverability and fostering genuine audience engagement.
- Investing in Education: Political organizations should invest in comprehensive training for staff and consultants to improve their understanding of email deliverability best practices.
- Strategic Approach to Volume: Campaigns need to balance fundraising and outreach goals with sustainable email practices, moving away from a sole reliance on high-volume, broad sending.
- Ethical Data Management: The common practice of list sharing necessitates careful consideration of data ethics and explicit consent to maintain recipient trust and comply with privacy expectations.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks explains that while there isn't much published documentation on specific poor political email list practices like sharing and swapping, these practices are common based on his decade of experience in the space. He shares that his company is implementing an Omnivore-like tool to reject poor lists, indicating a recognition of these issues, and provided a link to ReturnPath's 2018 Deliverability Benchmark report. He also notes a general lack of deliverability knowledge within the sector, where quantity is often prioritized over quality.
4 Aug 2021 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks shares his personal experience as an ESP, stating that many political customers want to email random lists with impunity and get upset when their accounts are suspended due to Acceptable Use Policy violations, confirming a prevalence of poor list practices.
6 Jan 2022 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
2 expert opinions
Drawing from expert insights, political email campaigns are indeed recognized for problematic list acquisition and sharing behaviors. This includes the widespread practice of purchasing, merging, or sharing email lists, often operating without adequate permission-based consent or even confirmed opt-in. Such methods represent a significant departure from established email marketing best practices.
Key opinions
- Prevalence of Non-Consensual Lists: Experts confirm that political campaigns frequently acquire and share email lists through broad means, often lacking strong permission-based consent.
- Absence of Confirmed Opt-in: Many campaigns forgo confirmed opt-in processes, instead relying on purchased or merged lists, indicating loose acquisition practices.
- Departure from Best Practices: The common list acquisition and sharing methods employed by political campaigns deviate significantly from standard email deliverability best practices.
Key considerations
- Importance of Permission: Emphasizing explicit, permission-based consent is crucial for political campaigns to build sustainable and engaged subscriber lists.
- Adherence to Best Practices: Adopting standard email list management best practices, including confirmed opt-in, is essential for improving deliverability and sender reputation.
- Transparency in Acquisition: Campaigns should strive for greater transparency in their list acquisition methods to foster trust with recipients and avoid perceptions of spamming.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that political email campaigns are indeed known for poor list acquisition and sharing practices. Many campaigns acquire email addresses through broad means, including purchasing and sharing lists, and often operate without strong permission-based consent. The article highlights that a significant portion of political email is not permission-based, with campaigns often using opaque methods for list acquisition and common list sharing practices.
13 Jan 2023 - Spam Resource
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise confirms that political email campaigns commonly exhibit problematic list acquisition and sharing behaviors. She states that many campaigns have loose acquisition practices, frequently purchasing or merging lists from other campaigns, and often do not even employ confirmed opt-in methods. This indicates a deviation from standard best practices for email list management.
3 Mar 2022 - Word to the Wise
What the documentation says
6 technical articles
Indeed, political email campaigns are frequently associated with poor list acquisition and sharing, a belief strongly supported by a range of published evidence. Academic research highlights broad, less-targeted list acquisition strategies that annoy recipients and generate high spam complaints. Industry data, such as Validity's annual reports, consistently demonstrates lower engagement, higher complaint rates, and increased spam folder placement for political emails. Further, organizations like Spamhaus Project directly list political IPs and domains due to unsolicited emails, providing technical confirmation. The regulatory landscape, including interpretations of the CAN-SPAM Act by political entities, and deviations from widely accepted industry best practices by groups like M3AAWG, also contribute to methods perceived as problematic.
Key findings
- Academic Findings on Acquisition: Academic research frequently identifies broad, less-targeted list acquisition methods in political campaigns, contributing to high user annoyance and spam complaints.
- Poor Performance Metrics: Data from industry sources consistently shows political emails have lower engagement rates, higher complaint rates, and increased spam folder placement compared to other sectors.
- Regulatory Interpretation Differences: Political organizations sometimes interpret the CAN-SPAM Act in ways that allow practices perceived as poor list acquisition, not always aligning with commercial consent standards.
- Deviation from Industry Standards: Many political senders disregard established email best practices for permission-based acquisition and clear unsubscribe options, as advocated by industry groups.
- Technical Blocklist Evidence: Leading anti-spam authorities frequently list political campaign-related IPs and domains due to high unsolicited email and complaint volumes, providing direct technical evidence.
- Strategic Prioritization: Studies reveal that political campaigns often prioritize wide reach and immediate fundraising over stringent list hygiene, which contributes to increased unwanted emails.
Key considerations
- Impact on Deliverability: The reliance on broad and less-targeted list acquisition significantly harms email deliverability, leading to lower inbox placement and reduced campaign effectiveness.
- Recipient Trust and Perception: Aggressive list growth and perceived unsolicited emails erode recipient trust, contributing to higher unsubscribe rates and negative brand perception.
- Risk of Blocklisting: High complaint rates and deviations from best practices increase the likelihood of being listed by major anti-spam organizations, severely impacting email outreach.
- Importance of Consent: Even within the political landscape, robust permission-based consent is crucial for building a healthy, engaged email list and ensuring sustainable communication.
- Adherence to Best Practices: Political campaigns should strive to align their list acquisition and sending practices with widely accepted email marketing best practices to improve reputation and deliverability.
- Navigating Regulatory Nuances: Campaigns must carefully consider how their interpretation of regulations like CAN-SPAM affects recipient experience and overall email program health.
Technical article
Documentation from ResearchGate shares academic research analyzing the volume and characteristics of political emails, often identifying practices such as broad, less-targeted list acquisition strategies that contribute significantly to user annoyance and high spam complaints.
13 Jun 2022 - ResearchGate
Technical article
Documentation from Validity (Annual Inbox Report) provides data showing that political email campaigns consistently exhibit lower engagement rates, higher complaint rates, and increased spam folder placement compared to other industry averages. This data directly supports the belief that aggressive list growth and sending practices lead to poor deliverability.
25 Jun 2022 - Validity (Annual Inbox Report)
How does content filtering affect political emails, and what data is shared with Google in sender pilot programs?
What email deliverability strategies are used in political campaigns and are there dedicated email support desks?
Why are email open rates declining for political campaigns acquired through Facebook ads despite strong engagement?
Why do political campaign emails go to spam?
Why do political emails end up in spam folders?
Why do purchased email lists cause deliverability issues and are not a best practice?
