Gmail Images Displayed By Default: What’s The Impact For Our Customers?(blog.mailjet.com)
blog.mailjet.com
Gmail Images Displayed By Default: What’s The Impact For Our Customers?
http://blog.mailjet.com/post/69885299950/google-images-displayed-by-default-whats-the-impact
10 comments
I like your example :D
So my point is:
1- Arstechnicas headline stating that "email marketing is dead" is completely exaggerated. Email designers are very happy now, so do email marketers in general.
2- This might change in the future, but there IS still a way to track multiple opens with gmail (HTTP Header for the tracking pixel => "Content-Length:0"
hope this helps!
1- Arstechnicas headline stating that "email marketing is dead" is completely exaggerated. Email designers are very happy now, so do email marketers in general.
2- This might change in the future, but there IS still a way to track multiple opens with gmail (HTTP Header for the tracking pixel => "Content-Length:0"
hope this helps!
1- Maybe it was just a clickbaity title but I think that the journalist was confused. Even here, on HN, many commentrs didn't fully grasp the idea of a unique tracking image being sent to each recipient.
There was a lot of confusion about this, at first. People didn't know if Google just fetched th images right away, or on opening the email, or what. If the former, unique tracking would be dead and the most information marketers would get was that the address was valid. So, it's been nice to have people shake out the real impact of this change, thanks.
OK I see! You're welcome
I am confused, though. I don't do email marketing, so maybe I don't have an appreciation for the utility of geolocation and user agent gathering.
The post seems to indicate that losing functionality and not adding anything from an email marketing perspective is a positive.
Isn't losing both of those things a net negative?
The post seems to indicate that losing functionality and not adding anything from an email marketing perspective is a positive.
Isn't losing both of those things a net negative?
Well before it would hide the images, so there were a lot of people who read the emails, but the ping to the marketers server was blocked by default. Now the default is to show email images, which tells the marketer that you opened the email.
So, for the few people who clicked "show images in this email" before the change, the marketers lose the richer metrics they were getting. But in return they gain slightly less granular metrics for a lot more people.
So, for the few people who clicked "show images in this email" before the change, the marketers lose the richer metrics they were getting. But in return they gain slightly less granular metrics for a lot more people.
Umm... what the hell? So Google is requesting the images as soon as I open the email? Then the proxy really doesn't make this new default as good as the old one.
You can disable it and go back to the old way. Now, at least it doesn't leak information like location or browser.
I wish they opened every attachment as soon as it was received, so marketers wouldn't know if it was ever opened.
I wish they opened every attachment as soon as it was received, so marketers wouldn't know if it was ever opened.
I will question a solid assumption for the sake of sparking a conversation:
Does a higher open rate for a customer correlate to higher revenue generated by that customer? Straight forward logic would suggest it does, but does it?
Here's an example: you are a SaaS business and you blast your paying but fairly inactive clients. What if all you are doing is reminding them to cancel?
Yes, it's anecdotal. But I have seen this happen more than once.
Does a higher open rate for a customer correlate to higher revenue generated by that customer? Straight forward logic would suggest it does, but does it?
Here's an example: you are a SaaS business and you blast your paying but fairly inactive clients. What if all you are doing is reminding them to cancel?
Yes, it's anecdotal. But I have seen this happen more than once.
Yes, the utility of the open rate is often misunderstood.
e.g. if you want to track revenues, you should rather track conversions with Google Analytics (integrate the tags in the links within your email).
The #1 use of the open rate is to measure how reactive your email subscribers are, and detect deliverability issues.
e.g. if your open rate drops for all the @hotmail destination, you know have an issue with this particular webmail.
Contrary to the click rate, the open rate is not an "absolute metric" because for example, some email clients would not load the images even if the recipient read your email. But still, it's very useful as it's the variations that matter.
e.g. if you want to track revenues, you should rather track conversions with Google Analytics (integrate the tags in the links within your email).
The #1 use of the open rate is to measure how reactive your email subscribers are, and detect deliverability issues.
e.g. if your open rate drops for all the @hotmail destination, you know have an issue with this particular webmail.
Contrary to the click rate, the open rate is not an "absolute metric" because for example, some email clients would not load the images even if the recipient read your email. But still, it's very useful as it's the variations that matter.
Certainly this depends on the company. But good questions for people to ask themselves before an email blast.
I'm confused, does anyone know the definitive answer as to whether Google grabs all images when the mail is received by the mail server? Or does it grab the images when the user opens the e-mail. The fact that the article says that open tracking still works implies the latter.
Anyone have a definitive answer?
In addition many ISPs (e.g Virginmedia in the UK) have outsource POP and IMAP Mail to Google, I wonder if the caching applies to that e-mail too, when collected by a regular e-mail client.
Anyone have a definitive answer?
In addition many ISPs (e.g Virginmedia in the UK) have outsource POP and IMAP Mail to Google, I wonder if the caching applies to that e-mail too, when collected by a regular e-mail client.
What a relief that e-mail marketing spammers will still be able to track multiple opens! What value!
I really hope they plug this loophole. I'd say that as soon as Google gets wind of this, they'll patch it.
Their whole system is designed to prevent this form of tracking. You've not just saved your email tracking business, you've merely postponed it's death.
Their whole system is designed to prevent this form of tracking. You've not just saved your email tracking business, you've merely postponed it's death.
Yet google loves analytics, so why would they "plug" this hole? Have they got something planned? Who knows!
Google Analytics only gives out aggregated data, however.
I would feel a lot safer if Google started running their own email analytics service, and blocked off everyone else. Oh, I can see the potential antitrust implications, but as a customer I still trust Google far more than any company whose sole purpose is to spy on my email.
(Disclaimer: I also work for them. I don't think that'd alter my conclusion, but possibly how strongly I feel about it.)
I would feel a lot safer if Google started running their own email analytics service, and blocked off everyone else. Oh, I can see the potential antitrust implications, but as a customer I still trust Google far more than any company whose sole purpose is to spy on my email.
(Disclaimer: I also work for them. I don't think that'd alter my conclusion, but possibly how strongly I feel about it.)
When did using single pixel images to surreptitiously track user behavior become a service that reputable companies offered to other reputable companies and talked about on blog posts?
It seems kinda shady no?
It seems kinda shady no?
If images are loaded by default, doesn't this open up the old attack vector that delayed image loading was designed to mitigate, wherein a spammer would send separate images to plausible email addresses and use which ones were loaded to build a database of active email addresses. Is it just that Google is confident enough in its spam detection heuristics that it no longer needs this long-standing line of defense?
[deleted]
Unless they open the images even for non-existing accounts, as soon as the mail is received by Google servers. If they are serious about killing the email marketing market they don't control, that's what they should do.
He was characterizing this move on Google's part as 'catching the gaze of the tiger' which is to say everyone knew this was going on, but nobody was doing anything about it, except now you know there is someone inside of Google thinking about this situation, gazing at it if you will.
They may walk away, they may not.
One of the more awesome things about having email re-imagined in a security conscious world would be that email would probably be unsuitable for collecting marketing analytics.
So far no one else seems to that done anything. Perhaps the tiger isn't hungry.