Sender Score Benchmark Report
The 2012 Return Path
Sender Score™ Benchmark Report
The Powe
o Be ea d
The Return Path Sender Score™ measures a business’ ability to communicate
with its customers. very ISP uses different criteria to determine whether
email should be delivered to the inbox, filtered to a spam folder, or blocked
altogether. owever, The Return Path Sender Score is a universal metric
that predicts deliverability across ISPs with a high degree of accuracy. More
importantly, by transparently laying out the key factors impacting email
deliverability and explaining how they can be optimized, we help businesses
increase the chances that their emails will land in customer inboxes. Simply
put, the Return Path Sender Score helps businesses and ISPs communicate
more effectively.
The 2012 Return Path Sender Score Benchmark Report additionally addresses:
•
•
•
•
The global email deliverability context.
The components of the Return Path Sender Score.
Global trends in key areas including email volume, complaints,
unknown users and spam traps.
Sector and region-specific deliverability trends.
Finally, we’ll review ways that businesses can improve their Sender Scores.
s an index of an email sender’s reputation, the Sender Score is a crucial tool
that ISPs can use to make deliverability decisions, and that businesses can use
to improve their chances of reaching customer inboxes. hen emails fail to
reach inboxes, businesses fail to communicate—with a direct impact on the
bottom line.
For more information please email [email protected]. © 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
xecu ve Su
a y
after reviewing 130 million IP addresses sending nearly 20 trillion emails, we found that over 85% of these
messages received by ISPs are classified as spam.
•
•
•
Spam levels decreased by 40% from January through pril, in part due to the takedown of the Rustock botnet.
Spam levels increased 45% from June through ecember.
The average IP address had a Sender Score of 25.96, compared to 90.46 for Return Path clients.
Sender reputations across the globe and industry sectors were affected primarily by the following factors:
•
•
•
unknown user rates or those email addresses no longer in active use
complaint rates when email recipients mark a message as spam
Spam traps, an email address set by ISPs to deliberately catch spammers
orldwide, North merican senders had the best reputations with an average Sender Score of 67. The M ( urope,
Middle ast and frica), P ( sia-Pacific) and L ( entral and Latin merica) regions all fared much worse with
average Sender Scores of 22, 20 and 18 respectively. No country in these regions had acceptable reputation rates
indicating a need to understand and follow best practices.
Social Networking sites are in need of the most improvement with an average of 20 spam traps per IP address and
unknown user rates above 5%. Retailers and banking industries struggle with complaint rates of 2.96% and 3.16%.
aving a good sending reputation is possible. For senders achieving a Sender Score of 90 or greater, they can achieve
an average delivered rate of 95%. For the major webmail providers, a Sender Score above 90 means an 81% inbox
placement rate at Gmail, almost 80% at otmail and 90% at ahoo!.
The ha e
e o ISP
Most Email Is Spam
There are trillions of emails sent every year, and the vast majority of them are spam.
Global Sender Score™ Distribuon
70 %
90-100: Great
60 %
60.00%
80-89: Good
50 %
70-79: Fair
40 %
60-69: Bad
30 %
50-59: Very Bad
01-49: Blacklist
20 %
16.40%
2.99%
2.73%
3.14%
2.62%
2.56%
1.96%
2.15%
5.45%
[30,40]
[40,50]
[50,60]
[60,70]
[70,80]
[80,90]
[90,100]
[10,20]
[0,10]
0%
[20,30]
10 %
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
2
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
fter a significant drop in the beginning of 2011, spam volume steadily increased after July, as did the total number
of messages blocked. mails that were delivered (including emails filtered into spam folders) steadily increased
throughout 2011.
Email Volume
40M
Global Average of Total
DELIVERED
35M
Global Average of Total
ATTEMPTED
30M
Global Average of Total
BLOCKED
25M
20M
15M
10M
20111227
20111207
20111117
20111028
20111008
20110918
20110829
20110809
20110720
20110630
20110610
20110521
20110501
20110411
20110322
20110302
20110210
20110121
20110101
5M
It’s important to clarify what we mean by “spam.” e don’t mean emails offering you subscriptions to magazines you
already receive, or credit cards you don’t need, or social networks you’re already a part of. Those emails aren’t filtered
with quite as much care as they could be, but by and large the offers they’re making are legitimate.
hen we talk about “spam,” we’re talking to emails you almost never see: the messages that get routed to your
spam filter, or blocked before they ever reach your account. These are emails sent from “illegitimate” and “unknown”
accounts as well as millions of computers infested with Trojans and running as “zombies.” These emails should never
have been sent; no ISP should accept them, and this spam accounts for over 85% of all emails.
Protecting email recipients from this huge volume of spam is not quite as difficult a challenge for ISPs as it might sound.
Three-quarters of illegitimate emails come from IP addresses that are completely egregious: they do not have reverse
NS; they didn’t send a single email in years and then 100,000 in a day; and so on. Their Sender Scores range from
0 to 50; handling them is easy. The challenge comes in deciding what to do with border cases: IPs that score in the
50 to 70 range. good percentage of these are spammers, but others are legitimate senders who fail to implement
deliverability best practices. Inevitably, IPs will mistakenly identify some of the latter as spammers.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
3
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
The ha e
e o Bu
e e
Not Becoming Collateral Damage in the War Against Spammers
ery few legitimate businesses will find their IPs scored between 0 and 40 for a prolonged period of time. xcepting
those who have had their IPs hacked by spammers, this range consists almost entirely of senders engaging in practices
that are more accurately described as “criminal” than “sloppy.” owever, a significant percentage of businesses might
find themselves with scores between 60 and 80, with the result that many of their emails will be blocked or filtered as
spam. The opportunity costs are significant: without inbox placement, click-through and conversion rates fall to nearly
zero—taking revenue and R I down with them. In fact, businesses with Sender Scores ranging from “Bad” to “ ery
Bad” fail to place nearly 80 percent of their emails in recipient inboxes.
Sender Score Bands and Average Delivered
Sender Score
Average Delivered
0 - 60
21%
61 - 70
67%
71 - 80
68%
81 - 90
92%
91 - 100
95%
Inbox Percent
Sender Score
Gmail
Hotmail
Yahoo
0 to 50
26.35%
34.51%
46.61%
51 to 60
29.53%
29.77%
51.99%
61 to 70
32.09%
36.31%
55.85%
71 to 80
38.61%
41.20%
62.46%
81 to 90
62.31%
61.39%
79.71%
91 to 100
81.09%
79.71%
89.89%
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
4
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
ISPs are understandably eager to protect their users. But, in doing so, they may be blocking or filtering emails from
legitimate senders. hile ISPs continually work to improve their filtering algorithms, the onus is on businesses to
improve their deliverability best practices.
In this Return Path report, we’ll review the factors that impact inbox deliverability in detail, as well as global patterns
we discovered in 2011. Finally, we’ll review deliverability best practices and how they can improve your Sender Score.
Return Path's Impact on Sender Scores™
90.46
25.96
Return Path Client Average
The o
o e
o The Re u
Global Average
Pa h Se de Sco e
The Return Path Sender Score is calculated on the basis of various sending behaviors. In our review of global
deliverability trends in 2011, we’ll review three of these components in detail.
Complaints: The volume and percentage of emails from an IP address that recipients mark “Spam.”
Unknown Users: The percentage of emails sent from an IP address to non-existent addresses.
Spam Traps: The number of emails sent from an IP address to decoy accounts ISPs use to catch spammers.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
5
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
G o a T e d
Complaints
“ omplaints” are registered when email recipients mark a message “spam.” ISP algorithms are crucial, but no metric is
more important than user-reported complaints. s a result, this is the single most important indicator affecting email
deliverability. Specifically, our data show that email senders need to keep their complaint rates at one-tenth of one
percent or below in order to avoid negatively impacting inbox placement.
Average WorldWide Complaint Rates
Total
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
20111227
20111215
20111203
20111121
20111109
20111028
20111016
20111004
20110922
20110910
20110829
20110817
20110805
20110724
20110712
20110630
20110618
20110606
20110525
20110513
20110501
20110419
20110407
20110326
20110314
20110218
20110206
20110125
20110113
20110101
0
Total complaint volume spiked at two points in 2011. The first was in late-February and early-March. The second, more
predictably, was in mid-November, as businesses ramped up email volume for the holiday season.
omplaint rates rose along with complaint volume early in the year. owever, while complaint volume spiked during
the holiday season, complaint rates were comparable to the highs in late-February and early-March. This is consistent
with patterns in previous years. Total email volume rises to such an extent during the holiday season that recipients
can’t keep up. Rather than marking this huge volume of holiday messages spam, many recipients simply deleted
messages, causing a drop in overall complaint volume. Furthermore, users have no incentive to complain about
multiple messages from the same sender. single IP might send three messages a day during the holiday season, but
many recipients will only mark one of them “spam,” driving overall complaint rates further down.
Unknown Users
“ nknown sers” are email addresses no longer in active use. These include email addresses that have never existed,
as well as abandoned email addresses.
Businesses are unlikely to send emails to addresses that have never existed, unless they are automatically generating
addresses or engaging in other “black hat” practices. Businesses are more likely to send emails to addresses that
are no longer in use. Most often, this is because they have kept addresses on their lists despite a long-term lack of
engagement. owever, the highest volume of nknown sers emails are the result of businesses collecting their users’
address books and sending messages to the entire list. (This accounts for the high percentage of nknown ser among
social networking sites, described in the Sector nalysis below.)
It is inevitable that businesses will have nknown ser addresses in their lists. Therefore, ISPs only block senders if
their unknown user rate is as high as 5 to 10 percent. owever, businesses should still aim to keep their nknown ser
rate as low as 2 percent.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
6
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
Spam Traps
hile “ nknown sers” are email accounts that happen to be out of use, ISPs set up spam traps for the express purpose of
catching spammers. n nknown ser rate of up to 5 percent is acceptable, but sending messages to even a single spam trap
can kill a sender’s reputation. In fact, many Blacklist operators use Spam Traps to determine which addresses to block.
There are two kinds of spam traps:
1. Email accounts that have never been in use. These account for the majority of spam traps.
2. Recycled email accounts. More rarely, ISPs use abandoned accounts as spam traps. (To exclude legitimate senders,
they first send codes to previous recipients indicating that the account no longer exists.)
s with nknown sers, social networking sites send the highest number of messages to spam traps, for reasons
explained in the Sector nalysis below.
Key Re o a T e d
North merican Sender Scores are significantly higher than scores in other regions. Many regions (including hina,
Brazil, Spain, Italy, and even France) deliver spam almost exclusively.
In all regions, Return Path client averages far outperform regional trends.
Key Regional Trends by Region
Region
Average Sender Score
North America (NOAM)
Return Path Client Average
67
90
United States
66.93
90
Canada
70.22
85
22
85
United Kingdom
50.75
91.5
Spain
26.84
82.4
Italy
22.42
91.1
Germany
33.24
84.6
France
47.43
84.2
Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA)
Asia-Pacific (APAC)
20
72
China
35.56
75.9
Australia
55.79
94.0
Central and La„n America (CALA)
Brazil
18
82
15.88
83.7
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
7
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
North America
Average
Sender Score
Average
Complaint Rate
Average Unknown
User Rate
Average
Spam Traps
Canada
70
1%
6%
4.90
United States
67
5%
4%
2.29
espite having the highest sending reputations globally, the .S. and anada have issues with complaints, unknown
users and spam traps. The .S. also has very few restrictions around non-permission acquisition of email addresses,
which puts marketers at risk for acquiring spam traps and receiving high subscriber complaints.
EMEA
Average
Sender Score
Average
Complaint Rate
Average Unknown
User Rate
Average
Spam Traps
France
47
3%
10%
11.48
Germany
33
6%
7%
3.52
Italy
22
3%
5%
6.58
Spain
27
2%
6%
6.77
United Kingdom
51
1%
6%
6.35
The most surprising thing about reputation metrics in urope is that they are so low when they have some of the strictest
laws around acquiring email address. For example, in Germany where double opt-in has been seen as the law, their Sender
Score was 33 and they had above average complaint rates, unknown users and spam traps. France, having a Sender Score
of 47, had one of the highest Sender Scores in urope, but had the biggest problem with unknown users and spam traps,
indicating that marketers have issues with list hygiene and keeping their lists up-to-date. Italy and Spain also had slightly
above average complaints, unknown users and spam traps with their Sender Scores coming in very low at 22 and 27
respectively. The K had the highest Sender Score of 51, but is struggling with high unknown user rates of 6% and high
average spam trap rates of an average of six per IP address. This indicates that uropean marketers are at high risk for
blocking and filtering.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
8
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
APAC
Average
Sender Score
Average
Complaint Rate
Average Unknown
User Rate
Average
Spam Traps
Australia
56
2%
9%
5.71
China
36
1%
7%
1.72
It’s not surprising that china has a low Sender Score of 36. It’s an emerging market and the email senders may have
a harder time understanding reputation factors and what it takes to get delivered to inboxes outside of china. while
their reputation metrics appear to be low, it’s because a majority of their email is blocked and never delivered. Return
Path’s last deliverability Benchmark Report showed that 80% of their mail was blocked. Therefore, if you can’t get your
mail delivered, you can’t send to a spam trap, much less have a subscriber mark your email as spam.
ustralia has typically high deliverability rates, which is somewhat reflected in their Sender Score. owever, with
unknown user rates at 9% and and having nearly six spam traps per IP address, they need to focus on how they acquire
and handle new and and old addresses.
CALA
Brazil
Average
Sender Score
Average
Complaint Rate
Average Unknown
User Rate
Average
Spam Traps
16
3%
7%
4.87
historically, Brazil has struggled with deliverability and their reputation. It’s an emerging market
and email m arketing is relatively new. additionally, Brazil sends out a lot of email which would be
considered spam which is causing an issue with their extremely low Sender Score of 16. with a
complaint rate of 3%, unknown user rate of 7% and average spam traps at nearly five, most
marketers have a long road ahead in resolving their deliverability and reputation issues.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
9
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
Key Sec o T e d
Most industry sectors performed at or near global averages. But there were significant outliers in a number of categories:
1. High frequency of spam traps among social networking senders. ne of the most important tools social networks use
to grow their subscriber base is the address books of their current users. owever, this presents a risk: most email
recipients do not actively manage their address books, resulting in numerous unused or abandoned emails being present.
s a result, social networking sites were hitting an average of 20 spam traps.
2. Social networking and gaming had the highest degree of unknown users. For reasons outlined above, social
networking and gaming sites also have unusually high unknown user rates.
3. The highest complaint rates occurred in social networking, banking, retail, and corporate services. ther industries had complaint rates above two percent, but social networking, banking, retail, and corporate services were
the only sectors to approach or breach a three percent average.
Note: ll sector data refers to Return Path customers. ( hile we can categorize IP addresses by region, we cannot use
IPs alone to determine industry sector.)
Complaint Rates by Sector
4%
3.5%
3.5%
3.2%
3%
3.0%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
2%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1%
.5%
0%
0
ts
uc
g
kin
od
Pr
er
n
Ba
m
su
n
Co
n
Co
su
m
er
Se
s
ice
rv
e
rat
s
ice
rv
Se
Ga
m
ing
l
tai
Re
po
r
Co
So
cia
l
t
Ne
wo
ng
rs
do
rk i
r ty
-Pa
ird
Th
t
Lis
n
Ve
Total Spam Traps by Sector
25
20.8
20
15
10
5
2.0
.1
0
nk
Ba
ing
uc
m
su
n
Co
od
Pr
er
ts
n
Co
.05
.02
su
m
er
Se
s
s
ce
rvi
rp
Co
o
e
rat
ice
rv
Se
.08
.0
Ga
m
ing
.09
ail
t
Re
So
cia
l
t
Ne
wo
ng
r ty
-Pa
ird
Th
rs
do
rk i
t
Lis
n
Ve
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
10
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
Average Unknown User Rates by Sector
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
0
nk
Ba
ing
uc
ts
e
m
su
n
Co
d
ro
rP
n
Co
su
m
e
e
rS
1%
s
s
ce
rvi
rat
po
r
Co
e
vic
er
eS
Ga
m
ing
l
tai
Re
So
cia
lN
w
et
or
g
kin
r
Pa
d-
rs
do
ty
Lis
en
tV
ir
Th
o c u o
Improving Your Return Path Sender Score
healthy Return Path Sender Score is no more optional for businesses than a healthy credit score. Neglect your email
deliverability reputation and you’ll fail to reach thousands of your customers. nd even if your emails are delivered,
a poor Sender Score could mean that they aren’t reaching recipient inboxes. Given how infrequently email recipients
elevate messages from the spam folder, that’s as good as being blocked.
The first step toward improving your Sender Score is finding out what it is. e offer free access to our Sender
Score to any sender, receiver or consumer of email at our reputation portal: http://www.senderscore.org. Senders
and receivers can register with senderscore.org for free to gain access to detailed reports on the metrics that
drive their sending reputation.
The next step is to reduce your complaint rate:
•
•
Sign up for feedback loops with your ISP(s). This service, provided by nearly every ISP, lets you know every time a
recipient marks one of your messages “spam.”
Periodically analyze your complaints to locate patterns of subscriber discontent. If particular offers or subject
lines perform poorly, quickly fix them.
Finally, practice the basics of list hygiene:
•
•
•
ollect good, clean data about your email subscriber base.
Track bounces and remove unknown users.
Implement a win-back and resting strategy to deal with inactive subscribers.
nd if you need additional support, Return Path is here to help.
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
11
Sender
Score Benchmark Report
Case Study
Me hodo o y
Return Path conducted this study by monitoring data from its Reputation Network from January to december
2011. This study tracked the reputation rates for more than 130 million IP addresses sending nearly 20 trillion
emails to ISPs in Return Path’s Reputation Network. For each IP address, Return Path recorded total messages
sent, delivered and blocked. we also reviewed unknown user, complaint, and spam trap rates for each IP
address. we assign each IP address its own score, called a Sender Score, based on these data points.
ou Re u
Pa h
Return Path makes email work better by scoring and certifying email senders from around the world. e help
marketers, publishers and other large-volume email senders increase their response rates by providing the world’s
leading inbox deliverability solution. e help mailbox providers and email administrators at ISPs and enterprises block
unwelcome and malicious email by providing near real-time IP reputation scores and other data-driven tools. Taken as
a whole, these tools and services improve the consumer experience of email by protecting them from spam, phishing
and other abuse. Return Path offers free access to Sender Score, the email reputation measure compiled through our
cooperative data network of ISPs and other email receivers, at our reputation portal: http://www.senderscore.org.
Information about Return Path can be found at http://www.returnpath.net.
Contact Us
North America
New York
304 Park venue South, 7th floor
New ork, N 10010, S
Phone : +1 212-905-5500
California
100 Mathilda Place, Suite 100
Sunnyvale,
94086, S
Phone : +1 408-328-5000
Colorado
8001 rista Place, Suite 300
Broomfield,
80021, S
Phone : +1 303-999-3100
Australia
Australia
Level 20, 201 Sussex Street
Sydney NSw 2000, australia
Phone : +61 2 9006 1591
South America
Brazil
Av. Brig. Faria Lima, n.º
1690 – Cj. 142
São Paulo – SP CEP
01451-001
Phone: +55 11 3740 8300
Europe
United Kingdom
12 Melcombe Place
London, Nw1 6JJ, uK
Phone : +44 (0) 845 002 0006
France
171 avenue charles de Gaulle
92200 Neuilly sur Seine, France
Phone : +33 (0)1 82 88 59 75
Germany
Neuer all 80
20354 amburg, Germany
Phone : +49 (0)40 822 138-438
For more information please email [email protected].
© 2012 Return Path, Inc. www.returnpath.net | v010512
12