±±¾©Èü³µpk10

If spam is an infuriating part of the daily grind for users, for direct marketers it has become a costly vicious circle. About 70 per cent of messages sent are spam, and internet service providers (ISPs) and users have become ever more militant in blocking them. But, according to many in the industry, 10 to 20 per cent of legitimate, opted-in messages get blocked too.

Neither marketers, email service providers (ESPs), ISPs, client-side senders or users are happy with this situation, but how the problem can be solved - and who should pay for it - remain thornier issues. In May, Revolution reported how discussions between the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) had stalled. Discussions have yet to restart.

Brian O'Sullivan, a member of the DMA's email marketing council, outlines what happened: "There were no formal meetings between the DMA and ISPA on email deliverability. We invited them to sit down with us but, unfortunately, they didn't share our views. Even with permission-based emails, up to 20 per cent are not delivered and when you're talking about items such as bills, the consequences are obvious."

No rules

When the discussions collapsed, there was talk that ISPA had snubbed the DMA. Both sides go to great pains to deny this, but it's clear there are some fundamental issues that were never cleared up. A spokesperson for the ISPA told Revolution: "The DMA was putting forward suggestions with no thought on who would pay or how they would be administered."

For its part, the DMA says talks never got as far as costings, and that it would be marketers and ESPs who picked up the tab. The DMA has several suggestions on how deliverability can be improved, and both the DMA and ISPA told Revolution that they are happy to resume discussions. So, what should they talk about? One key issue is the lack of consensus among ISPs about what constitutes good and bad email practice.

"There are no hard and fast rules," says Richard Doerr, acting IT director at The Daily Telegraph. "If there were, I'd be more than happy to play by them, but you don't know the rules until you've broken them. We send out 200,000 emails a day. We try to speak to all the major ISPs to check they're not regarded as spam, but if something does need doing it can be very hard work. You can end up talking to someone on a helpdesk in another country and it's very hard to solve the problem."

Valerie Bruce, e-business manager at Scottish Widows, adds: "At the moment we're all in a trial-and-error situation, so we need guidance. There are so many ISPs with different spam filters that some uniformity would benefit the whole industry."

While they wait, Bruce advocates a back-to-basics approach for marketers wanting to raise deliverability rates. She believes the most effective way is to keep on top of sender lists by continually rechecking who has agreed to accept what, but she concedes that it's a tough job. "We were finding that we didn't have the time or the resources to stay on top of the ISPs' requirements, so we outsourced our email services. This ensured they weren't perceived as spam and were in the correct format for the individual ISP." (See case study, p56.)

Bruce says a third party got non-delivered mail rates down to one per cent, and declares: "We don't have any direct problem with ISPs because we have someone to sort it out for us."

All well and good, but these systems don't come cheap. "We like to think our daily newsletter list is clean," says The Daily Telegraph's Doerr.

"But what we do get is requests from other areas of the business to send out information, so we tend to use an outside bureau to clean up that data. It's quite expensive, but the alternative is that you get blacklisted."

The Daily Telegraph enlisted Ironport to manage its emails. Jason Steer, security consultant at the email security specialist, explains: "We use the bonded sender program, which is essentially a list of 'good' email senders and is designed to take the financial incentive out of sending spam. Legitimate senders who sign up put money into a trust fund. If they get complaints, money is deducted from the fund and given to charity."

This kind of 'whitelisting' has become popular with big-name providers such as MSN, but the system has been criticised for not going far enough.

Skip Fidura, managing director of Digital Impact, who also sits on the Email Marketing Council's deliverability hub, says it's a good idea in principle but fails to solve some of the fundamental problems. "You can make a mistake and money is taken from your bond, but you're not told who has complained. So, you can't remove them from your lists and you can end up making the same mistake again."

German model

Both Fidura and the DMA's O'Sullivan suggest all sides in the UK debate should look to the current proceedings in Germany. Earlier this year, Germany's ISPA (FEDIMA) introduced a 'white-listing' system, which Fidura says builds on the systems being operated by the big ISPs in the UK.

Rather than just having lists of approved mailers, the German operation is overseen by four people; two representing ISPs and two from Germany's DMA. ESPs pay to join the scheme and a complaints threshold has been put in place. As Fidura understands it, if senders breach the threshold once, they get a warning; twice, they get a 48-hour ban, and three times, a longer ban. If they make a fourth mistake, they're permanently blacklisted.

Initial results should be presented to FEDIMA's email council before the end of the year.

Doerr favours having a tangible forum for discussion. "We have five million registered users on our site, so the spread of ISPs is huge," he explains.

"We know we're never going to get 100 per cent agreement (from ISPs), but if we had a warning that we were at risk of being blocked, so we would have a chance to put our case and change things as necessary, that would be an improvement. At the moment we're not even told when we are being cut off."

An ISPA spokesperson says he wasn't aware of the whitelisting trial in Germany, but was cautiously positive when told of the details: "It sounds like a good place to start. In principle it's fine, but does anyone know what the price tag is? How much are ESPs and marketers willing to pay for this?" He adds that the permission aspect of emails from whitelisted senders would have to be strict to satisfy ISPs: "Our members would have to be satisfied that this is in their customers' interest. Does it mean they're getting mail they don't want? Did they mean to opt-in? It has to be remembered that direct marketers still make mistakes and send out inappropriate material."

Derek Owen, director of marketing at Demon, says he can see both sides of the deliverability debate. While it is his job to ensure high deliverability rates for Demon's marketing, he concedes that spam is a problem. "In an average week, I'm sent more than 1,000 emails, of which only 90 are legitimate.

The current situation isn't perfect, but, generally, I don't get anything blocked that I have given permission for."

Owen agrees with the DMA that whitelisting could be the answer, but believes an independent third-party should watch over it. "We need clarification. A body such as the DTI's communication commission should take overall directorship."

Currently, the DMA does meet with the DTI's anti-spam group on a regular, if ad-hoc, basis. Fidura says he's not averse to the government body enlarging its role. As well as whitelisting, he has several other suggestions for improving deliverability, such as a Royal Mail-style set-up whereby marketers of approved emails would pay for a 'stamp', guaranteeing their delivery.

Whatever meets with approval, Fidura makes it clear that, if and when the DMA and ISPA do sit down around a table, he will go in with an open mind. "There are a number of solutions in the works from ISPs and ESPs in the US, involving proof of sender and, perhaps more significantly, the reputation of sender systems. If they move quickly and are adopted widely by the bigger names, they should be considered."

Owen accepts that the present situation is not ideal and says all sides should act before technology exacerbates the situation. "In three years' time, when 3G is properly in place, there will be many more media channels. Now is the time to move."

Open doors

What is clear is that the DMA does want to get discussions under way.

"Our position remains unchanged," says Fidura. "We understand that when the previous communications ended, it was no snub from the ISPA. We also understand the position of the ISPs. And it's in our interest to get the right mail to the people who have asked for it."

According to its spokesperson, the ISPA's door is open. "When we stopped talking, it wasn't a snub, just bad timing. If the DMA can create an effective proposal, we'd like to sit down and talk about it." Whether agreement can be reached on a workable, funded model remains to be seen, but with all sides keen to take the debate forward, there's no time like the present.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS OUTSOURCES EMAIL TO GUARANTEE DELIVERY

Couple hatred of spam with hundreds of ISPs and it's no surprise that even legitimate, opted-in emails never arrive.

Valerie Bruce, e-business manager at Scottish Widows, says the firm lacked the time and resources to stay on top of providers' requirements, so it outsourced its email delivery to Premiere Global Services (PGS).

As a result, Scottish Widows' non-delivery rates are now "down to less than one per cent", she says. Whether marketers outsource their email management or not, Bruce suggests they look at their own set-up.

It's often simple stuff that causes legitimate mails to be perceived as pernicious, she says. "To apply for a mortgage you must be over 18, but you have to be very careful how you put that in an email as it could be seen as something else," she explains. There are a lot of big names making mistakes.

She adds: "Some smaller organisations are more savvy and understand the issues, whereas a lot of the larger players see email as an add-on to traditional marketing."

PGS technical director Steve King, agrees: "Often, the big brands are the worst offenders. There's a temptation to think that if they have a big in-house development team, they can own and maintain everything. Adding an email platform is often perceived as a zero-cost option, but the damage a bad list of names should not be underestimated."

Alyn Hockey, director of research at Clearswift, which has several banking clients, warns that anyone can get caught out. "Marketers need to create systems that will get past spam filters, but spammers know all the tricks.

A lot of problems occur when messages from legitimate senders are actually spoof emails from spammers." He adds: "Even sender reputation schemes, which can be referenced and are verifiable, are not foolproof. Microsoft spends a fortune trying to prevent spam, yet it has received complaints recently about sending out spam emails themselves."