Technical Sessions 3: 2 Ways to Verify Your Unverifiable B2B Email

Technical Sessions 3: 2 Ways to Verify Your Unverifiable B2B Email

Don’t have time to read now? Download your ‘Listen Later’ pack here to receive a PDF transcript and audio copy. It’s been a problem for a long time for a lot of companies: unverifiable B2B email addresses. Especially if you’re a marketing company or department with a big pile of data, you end up a with a bunch of question marks instead of valid data. Welcome back to the Corporate Data Show’s third Technical Sessions, the place where you can find a short guide series translating technical data processes to real world marketing applications. Q: What are the two methods of root validation of unverifiable B2B email addresses? A: Sent mail and “ask” (a.k.a. pings, MX lookups, and port 80 asks). Each method has its pros and cons, which Rick Holmes, founder of Every Market Media, is here to explain. Pros: Sent Mail Sent mail—meaning email, not direct mail—is one of the highest quality ways to ensure your messages are being delivered to a person. “With a good delivery system, responses to sent mail can be trusted,” Holmes said. A delivery message, especially with an open, is a great way to check to be sure that a person got your message. A problem with sent mail (coming up later) is that catch-alls can keep the message from being delivered. But if you have great delivery, you’re not likely being spoofed. (Plus, you can collect more metadata this way.) Another pro of good delivery is the low percentage of unknown responses. “Your soft bounces, mailbox full notifications, and out of office responses also come in much smaller amounts,” Holmes said....
Technical Sessions 3: Are You Making These 6 Sent Mail Mistakes?

Technical Sessions 3: Are You Making These 6 Sent Mail Mistakes?

It’s been a problem for a long time for a lot of companies: unverifiable B2B email addresses. Especially if you’re a marketing company or department with a big pile of data, you end up a with a bunch of question marks instead of valid data. Welcome back to the Corporate Data Show’s third Technical Sessions, the place where you can find a short guide series translating technical data processes to real world marketing applications. Q: What are the two methods of root validation of unverifiable b2b email addresses? A: Sent mail and “ask” (a.k.a. pings, MX lookups, and port 80 asks). Each method has its pros and cons, which Rick Holmes, founder of Every Market Media, is here to explain. “If you’re looking for a fast cut and you’ve got more data than you need, use a ping. If you… Click To Tweet “Use ask and sent mail as a group if you want to be able to balance the cons of each with the… Click To...
How to Navigate Unverifiable Email Addresses

How to Navigate Unverifiable Email Addresses

Unverifiable email addresses aren’t as easy to navigate as they used to be. Today’s guest is Rowland O’Connor, CEO of EmailHippo.com. He shared his thoughts on unverifiable email addresses, Microsoft 365, velocity-based email blasts, and more. “The reality of the email system does not match the theory.” – Rowland O’Connor Click To Tweet “You need an ancillary source of confirming data outside of using a mailbox ping or sending… Click To...
What to Do With Unverifiable Email Addresses

What to Do With Unverifiable Email Addresses

Don’t have time to read now? Download your ‘Listen Later’ pack here to receive a PDF transcript and audio copy. Unverifiable email addresses aren’t as easy to navigate as they used to be. We recently interviewed Rowland O’Connor, CEO of EmailHippo.com. He shared his thoughts on unverifiable email addresses, Microsoft 365, velocity-based email blasts, and more. This post is based on his insight. The Difficulty of Verifying B2B Emails One of the most interesting things that came out of our interview was a major shift Rowland has seen in verifying emails. Traditionally, it’s been difficult to verify B2C. In the last few months, though, B2B has taken over as the far more difficult category. What does Rowland attribute that to? It’s a very simple answer: Microsoft Office 365. Office 365 has been aggressively marketed by Microsoft as a B2B solution for hosting your emails and your collaborative tools. Exchange has always been an issue for email verification, and it’s now finding its way into the cloud infrastructure. The adoption has increased and anti-spam has improved as well on Office 365, which makes EmailHippo’s job harder. What’s the actual problem? So Office 365 has made filters harder to get through. But does it make delivery responses harder to interpret, or do they just not respond? The answer ties in well with our topic of unverifiable emails. Office 365 behaves in one of two ways: 1) It gives an absolute, definite answer on whether an email address is OK or not. 2) It comes back and says “unverifiable” as a catchall. Yet, the catchall disposition that comes back is not actually...
Why Bulk Email Databases Should Use a “Rough Cut”

Why Bulk Email Databases Should Use a “Rough Cut”

So you’ve got a big email list laying around. At least a couple hundred thousand emails. It’s old, or perhaps its origin has not been well documented.  Or maybe you’ve seen the recent stat from Briteverify that says 7% of input emails have typos and 10 – 15% contain invalid email addresses. No matter the case, when you’re dealing with a large email data set that contains a high percentage of un-deliverable emails, paying to remove known bad or risky emails with a top dollar cleansing service is hurting your ROI. While nothing can beat having verified emails right before you deliver, a best practice EMM agrees with, preparing your base data record to a “maintenance ready” state means that when you do pull records for a marketing campaign you can plan on the drop rate only being the natural decay of your list and not a bunch of other compounded factors, reducing scrub costs. Let’s use a 2.5 million record email database to illustrate the potential savings to a medium sized consumer of email verification products.  – Live verify w popular vendor volume discounts: 2,500,000 x $5 / 1000 (.005 per email) = $12,500  – Static + live verification of balance w Firstpass: 2,500,000 x $1000 per million = $2,500 As an added bonus, as volumes rise, the static process will complete exponentially faster as database matching is faster per record than MX queries or live mailing. With a larger set like 20 million records, it’s a no brainer. Faster and less expensive, who doesn’t want that on their marketing team? Now all you need to do is...
EMM has launched a new podcast! Sign up here so that you don't miss an Episode!