I disagree with the EEC’s efforts to redefine the methods marketers – and the industry as a whole – use to track email marketing behaviors. While changing the terminology from “open rate” to “render rate” may be a more accurate reflection of the measurement, a new name is simply a distraction from the real issue: accurate measurement of the impact of the email channel.
There are a number of challenges email marketers face every day to compile any sort of reporting on the performance of their program, including:
These challenges not only make it difficult to compile full response data for program performance analysis, but inherently have discord between them. For example: what the ESP provides as clicks may not match up to the number of link visits reported by the web analytics tool. This forces the marketers to use the available data as directional indicators – and not precise measurements of subscriber behavior.
Therefore, implementing a complicated algorithm that may be a fraction more accurate for a single metric (opens or renders, in this case), will not greatly impact the overall analytics picture for the marketer. And, in fact, would most likely serve to add greater stress to the already thinly-stretched marketer, as they attempt to gather more detailed reporting data (such as separating clickers-only from openers-and-clickers) in order to perform the calculation.
So, while theoretically it sounds like a good practice to be more accurate in measuring these “Total Unique Action Values,” the impact would be negligible, at best. When used in combination with other metrics, marketers would still need to apply a directional approach for measuring business impact due to the broad and ever-present challenges faced in capturing the total response an email creates.
Agree with Bonnie? Share your views on the EEC blog.