What are appropriate KPIs for compensation based pay for email deliverability roles?

Key findings

• External control: Many critical factors influencing deliverability, like client implementation of recommendations or mailbox provider policy changes, are beyond the deliverability professional's direct control.
• Risk of commercial suicide: A compensation model based on 'no fix, no fee' or similar outcome-dependent terms is unsustainable for deliverability practices due to the inherent unpredictability.
• Misaligned KPIs: Deliverability KPIs, if tied to compensation, can sometimes conflict with an email marketer's broader campaign objectives, creating tension.
• Unfair measurement: It is often considered unfair to link compensation directly to final email metrics (e.g., inbox placement rates) when the professional lacks full control over the factors driving those metrics.

Key considerations

• Focus on controllable actions: KPIs for compensation should primarily assess elements within the deliverability professional's direct control, such as response times, quality of analysis, and clarity of recommendations.
• Role as a consultant: The role is more akin to a 'doctor' providing expert advice and warnings, rather than a sales person hitting specific numerical outcomes.
• Value of expertise: Compensation should reflect the professional's knowledge, skills, and motivation in diagnosing issues and proposing solutions, rather than solely on the client's subsequent implementation success or failure.
• Alignment with broader goals: Consider how compensation metrics can better align deliverability goals with overall company objectives, focusing on strategic contributions.

Key opinions

• Resistance to outcome-based pay: Many marketers are uncomfortable with compensation tied to deliverability outcomes because they cannot guarantee results.
• KPI conflict: Deliverability KPIs can sometimes be at odds with broader email marketing goals, like maximizing reach, leading to internal tension.
• Focus on controllable inputs: If compensation must be linked to metrics, they should reflect actions directly controlled by the marketer, such as adherence to best practices and timely issue resolution.
• Avoid meaningless bonuses: Bonuses based on arbitrary deliverability rate increases often feel arbitrary and disconnected from their actual efforts.

Key considerations

• Define scope of control: Clearly delineate which aspects of deliverability a marketer genuinely controls versus those influenced by external parties (e.g., ESPs, ISPs, recipient behavior).
• Process-oriented KPIs: Consider KPIs that measure the effectiveness of processes implemented, such as regular deliverability checks, responsiveness to issues, and proactive list management.
• Team-based incentives: If overall deliverability metrics are crucial, consider group incentives that reward the entire team for collective success, rather than penalizing individuals for factors outside their control.
• Educational and advisory role: Emphasize the marketer's role in educating internal teams and clients on best practices, which is a valuable, controllable contribution.

Key opinions

• Control limitation: A key issue is the limited control deliverability professionals have over client implementation or mailbox provider actions, making outcome-based compensation unfair.
• Consultant analogy: Their role is best described as a consultant or doctor, providing expert advice, not guaranteeing a cure irrespective of external factors.
• Commercial viability: A 'no fix, no fee' model for deliverability services would be financially unsustainable given the complexities and external dependencies.
• Accountability gap: It's unjust to hold deliverability personnel accountable for issues when they lack the authority to enforce necessary changes at either the client or mailbox provider end.

Key considerations

• Assess soft skills and knowledge: Compensation should acknowledge the professional's expertise, problem-solving skills, and ability to communicate complex issues.
• Internal process metrics: KPIs could include internal metrics like efficiency in diagnosing problems, speed of response to urgent issues, and thoroughness of audits.
• Focus on advice quality: Rather than outcome, measure the quality and strategic value of the advice given, and the ability to influence positive changes (even if not directly controlled). This ties into how ISPs track engagement.
• Client education and advocacy: Evaluate their effectiveness in educating clients on best practices and advocating for necessary changes within the client's organization. This can be supported by operational KPIs.

Key findings

• Multi-faceted metrics: Deliverability is measured through a combination of technical (e.g., bounce rate, blocklist status) and engagement metrics (e.g., open rates, spam complaints).
• Dynamic nature: Email filtering algorithms and best practices are constantly evolving, requiring continuous adaptation.
• Shared responsibility: Deliverability is often a shared responsibility across technical, marketing, and sales teams, making individual attribution for outcomes complex.
• No direct compensation guidance: Documentation provides how-to on monitoring and improving, but not on how to compensate roles based on these metrics.

Key considerations

• Holistic view: Compensation models should consider the entire deliverability ecosystem, recognizing that success relies on multiple inputs.
• Proactive vs. reactive: Value should be placed on proactive measures (e.g., maintaining clean lists, implementing authentication) as much as reactive problem-solving.
• Adaptability: Recognize and reward the ability of deliverability professionals to adapt to new ISP policies and industry changes.
• Education and training: Compensate for roles that include educating internal teams on best practices, thereby indirectly improving deliverability outcomes. See Qlik's guide on marketing KPIs.