Summary
Email engagement metrics are crucial for determining inbox delivery and maintaining a strong sender reputation. While marketers often track metrics like opens and clicks, mailbox providers (MBPs) such as Gmail, Microsoft, and Apple utilize a complex, multi-dimensional set of signals to assess sender behavior and recipient interest. Understanding these varying approaches is key to optimizing your email program and ensuring messages reach the inbox, rather than the spam folder or simply being ignored (also known as greymail). Internet Service Providers track email engagement through various actions, which are not always openly disclosed or universally weighted. Positive interactions signal to MBPs that your emails are valued, while negative or indifferent behavior can degrade your sender reputation over time.
Key findings
- ISP variation: Different ISPs employ distinct algorithms and metrics to gauge engagement and sender reputation, making a universal ranking of positive actions difficult to define.
- Black box nature: The exact weighting and combination of engagement signals used by major MBPs like Gmail and Microsoft remain proprietary and undisclosed.
- Replies as strong signals: Replies are often considered a highly valuable positive signal, potentially leading to automatic additions to a recipient's address book or safe senders list.
- Limited click tracking: Some ISPs, notably Gmail, have historically stated they do not use clicks as a direct metric for deliverability, although this can be subject to change and interpretation.
- Negative signals: Actions such as marking an email as spam or sustained non-engagement (e.g., no opens or clicks over several months) are strong negative indicators of recipient disinterest.
- Audience impact: Engagement metrics are more critical for consumer audiences (B2C) where email platforms heavily rely on user interaction to determine inbox placement. B2B environments may have different filtering criteria.
Key considerations
- Contextual engagement: The interpretation of engagement can vary. For example, a scroll might indicate interest or simply a search for an unsubscribe link.
- Client limitations: MBPs can only track engagement that occurs within their own web interfaces or managed mobile clients, not third-party mail clients (like Apple Mail).
- Greymail concerns: Emails consistently ignored by a significant portion of recipients at a specific MBP can be classified as greymail, reducing their perceived value and potentially affecting future delivery.
- Long-term vs. short-term: While short-term revenue might encourage sending to disengaged users, neglecting long-term engagement can lead to a decline in sender reputation and overall deliverability. This can lead to a long period of low email sender reputation.
- Data-driven decisions: It is essential to analyze your own historical engagement data to determine optimal re-engagement or suppression thresholds for your specific audience segments.
What email marketers say
Email marketers are often caught between maximizing immediate revenue and maintaining optimal sender reputation. While they intuitively understand the importance of positive engagement, the precise impact of each metric on inbox delivery can feel like a guessing game. Many struggle to justify suppressing or removing unengaged subscribers, especially when those segments still generate some revenue, leading to internal debates about email list quality versus short-term gains.
Key opinions
- Prioritized positive actions: Marketers frequently rank actions like adding to a safe senders list, replies, clicks, scrolls, and opens in order of perceived importance for inboxing.
- Clearer negative signals: There's a general consensus that negative actions, particularly marking as spam or prolonged inactivity, are more straightforward indicators of disengagement.
- Revenue vs. reputation: A common dilemma is balancing the immediate revenue generated by sending to a large list, including unengaged users, against the potential long-term damage to sender reputation.
- Internal cost structures: Low internal sending costs can de-incentivize list hygiene efforts, as the perceived monetary 'cost' of sending to disengaged users is minimal.
- Desire for focus: Many marketers prefer to concentrate efforts on highly engaged segments, believing this yields better long-term results and higher ROI, even if it means a smaller list size.
Key considerations
- Uncertain MBP monitoring: Marketers often question whether MBPs truly monitor all engagement metrics their own platforms track or if these are merely internal benchmarks for sender reputation.
- Measuring impact: The challenge lies in quantifying the negative impact of sending to unengaged users against the revenue they might occasionally generate, especially when direct costs are low.
- Management buy-in: Securing organizational support for aggressive list hygiene strategies can be difficult when current deliverability rates appear healthy and there's a perceived direct revenue loss.
- The 'rabbit hole' of metrics: The complexity of MBP algorithms means there is no single, simple answer or formula for prioritizing engagement metrics, often leading to a sense of chasing an elusive target.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests that marketers often rank positive email actions for inboxing in a specific order: adding to a safe senders list, replying, clicking, scrolling, and finally opening the email. This order reflects a common perception of engagement importance.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Mailjet emphasizes that a strong sender reputation is crucial because it directly influences email deliverability. They highlight the importance of understanding and improving this reputation to ensure messages reach the inbox effectively.
What the experts say
Deliverability experts confirm that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to how email engagement metrics affect inbox placement, as each mailbox provider has its own unique, often opaque, filtering system. They stress that true engagement goes beyond simple opens and clicks, encompassing a broader relationship with the recipient. Experts also caution against manipulative tactics that artificially inflate engagement metrics, as these can backfire and harm long-term deliverability and sending reputation.
Key opinions
- ISP-specific variations: Mailbox providers like Gmail, Microsoft, and Yahoo have distinct, often undisclosed, criteria for evaluating engagement and deliverability.
- Black box reality: Understanding what Microsoft deems important for deliverability is particularly challenging due to its highly proprietary and complex system.
- Replies are powerful: Replying to an email is often the most common way for a recipient to add a sender to their safe senders list, significantly boosting sender reputation.
- Beyond simple metrics: Mailbox providers want to deliver emails that users genuinely desire, using a complex set of user actions and signals to determine what constitutes a 'wanted' email.
- Danger of non-engagement: While a single ignored email means little, a mailstream consistently ignored by a significant portion of recipients will be classified as 'greymail,' reducing its value and impacting future delivery.
- B2B vs. B2C engagement: Engagement metrics are less relevant for B2B audiences, as business filters operate differently and much legitimate B2B mail may not receive traditional 'engagement'.
Key considerations
- Measuring what matters: Mailbox providers can only track engagement within their own environments, making it challenging for senders to understand the full picture of how their emails are being received by users on various clients.
- Manipulative tactics: Tactics like requesting 'reply to unsubscribe' to boost reputation are manipulative and could lead ISPs to devalue the 'reply' metric in the future.
- Business vs. best practices: There's a constant tension between what deliverability experts know is best for long-term email health and what businesses prioritize for short-term revenue, especially when current deliverability seems acceptable.
- Data-driven list hygiene: Analyzing historical data (e.g., average time between activity) can reveal optimal points for removing unengaged users, allowing businesses to understand the precise revenue impact.
- No universal rule: Generic 'best practices' are often too simplistic for complex sending scenarios; a tailored approach based on specific audience and mailstream data is necessary.
- Postmaster tools: Leveraging language from Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Postmaster pages can help justify list hygiene efforts by aligning them with MBP recommendations to send only desired mail.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks explains that different ISPs employ varying factors in their measurements. Therefore, any discussion about engagement metrics must first specify which ISPs are being considered, as there's no single universal standard.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from SpamResource states that sender reputation is heavily influenced by how recipients interact with emails. Positive engagement leads to better inboxing, while disengagement can result in filtering to spam folders or even blocklisting.
What the documentation says
Official documentation from major mailbox providers and email industry bodies consistently emphasizes the importance of user engagement as a cornerstone of sender reputation and inbox delivery. While not always providing explicit formulas, these guidelines stress that sending mail that users genuinely want to receive and interact with is paramount. They often highlight that sustained disengagement from a significant portion of a mailing list can negatively impact a sender's standing, leading to reduced inbox placement and potential blacklisting.
Key findings
- User-centric approach: Documentation across ISPs consistently advises senders to prioritize sending mail that users want, indicating that user behavior is a primary factor in filtering decisions.
- Engagement as a core signal: Metrics like opens, clicks, replies, and moves to inbox (or out of spam) are broadly recognized as positive engagement signals that contribute to sender reputation.
- Negative feedback loops: Spam complaints, manual spam classifications, and high unsubscribe rates are strong negative signals that directly harm sender reputation and deliverability.
- List hygiene importance: Maintaining a clean and engaged list, often through regular re-engagement campaigns or suppression of inactive users, is frequently recommended to preserve sender reputation.
- Bounce rates: High hard bounce rates signal poor list quality and are explicitly stated as detrimental to sender reputation by many providers.
Key considerations
- Postmaster tools insights: Official Postmaster Tools (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Yahoo) provide aggregated data on sender reputation, spam rates, and delivery errors, offering insights into how MBPs perceive your mailstream. Learn more about what metrics to monitor in Google Postmaster Tools.
- Consistency matters: Consistent sending practices and engagement over time are valued more than sporadic bursts of activity, contributing to a stable and positive sender reputation.
- Adaptation to behavior: While not always explicit, documentation implies that filtering systems adapt to user behavior; consistent positive interactions for an individual recipient can override global filters.
- Avoiding spam traps: Sending to dormant or unengaged addresses increases the risk of hitting spam traps, a severe negative signal for sender reputation.
- Authentication basics: Alongside engagement, proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is consistently highlighted as a foundational element for building trust with ISPs.
Technical article
Klaviyo Help Center explains that performance with key metrics, including engagement, directly impacts sender reputation and ultimately inbox placement rates. These metrics provide insight into campaign effectiveness.
Technical article
EmailLabs documentation states that bounce rates are a significant metric influencing a sender's score and reputation. Both soft and hard bounces contribute to this impact.
Related resources
8 resources
Related pages
What factors influence email deliverability and how does SenderScore work?
How do Internet Service Providers track email engagement and its impact on deliverability?
How does email list quality and sending frequency impact deliverability and sender reputation?
What are good email engagement thresholds for deliverability monitoring?
What email deliverability metrics to monitor in Google Postmaster Tools?
What are the benchmarks for email open, click, and complaint rates to ensure good deliverability?
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
How to increase email click through rate [step by step guide]
How email blacklists actually work: a simple guide
Spam traps: what they are and how they work
