<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics relating to Email</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/</link>
	<description>Email Marketing best practice, research and deliverability advice.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 11:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard Gibson</title>
		<link>http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Gibson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmablog.designs.dotmailer.co.uk/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/#comment-28</guid>
		<description>A good post and some good comments. &#8216;New&#8217; is good. &#8216;New&#8217; is exciting. Moreover &#8216;new&#8217; has the potential to grab or make headlines and I wonder how much of that is behind the (misreported) death of email that you comment on here Dela. 
I enjoyed Skip&#8217;s post here (&lt;a href=&quot;http://emailpractice.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-is-everybody-out-to-get-email.html)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://emailpractice.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-is-...&lt;/a&gt; 
that lists six &#8216;killers&#8217;. 
The point I took away from his post is the one that interests me from a personal perspective most of all. And that is integration; email working with direct mail, email working with telephone and other new and emerging channels. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good post and some good comments. &lsquo;New&rsquo; is good. &lsquo;New&rsquo; is exciting. Moreover &lsquo;new&rsquo; has the potential to grab or make headlines and I wonder how much of that is behind the (misreported) death of email that you comment on here Dela.<br />
I enjoyed Skip&rsquo;s post here (<a href="http://emailpractice.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-is-everybody-out-to-get-email.html)" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://emailpractice.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-is-" rel="nofollow">http://emailpractice.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-is-</a>&#8230;<br />
that lists six &lsquo;killers&rsquo;.<br />
The point I took away from his post is the one that interests me from a personal perspective most of all. And that is integration; email working with direct mail, email working with telephone and other new and emerging channels. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skip Fidura</title>
		<link>http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Skip Fidura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmablog.designs.dotmailer.co.uk/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>I saw this post on Deliverability.Com and made a comment but seeing it here again made me wonder and write about &quot;Why is everybody out to get email?&quot; ( &lt;a href=&quot;http://is.gd/nQFd&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://is.gd/nQFd&lt;/a&gt; ) 
When the Guardian posted this last week they used Spam as the reason for this shift, but I have yet to see research that shows consumer to consumer email behaviour is changing because of Spam and Spam filtering.  If it is out there I would love to see it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw this post on Deliverability.Com and made a comment but seeing it here again made me wonder and write about &quot;Why is everybody out to get email?&quot; ( <a href="http://is.gd/nQFd" rel="nofollow">http://is.gd/nQFd</a> )<br />
When the Guardian posted this last week they used Spam as the reason for this shift, but I have yet to see research that shows consumer to consumer email behaviour is changing because of Spam and Spam filtering.  If it is out there I would love to see it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake Holman</title>
		<link>http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/comment-page-1/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmablog.designs.dotmailer.co.uk/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>This is truly amazing. Not sure about my BS metre, but my FUA metre is certainly hitting the top (brownie points for working out the NSFW acronym). 
The websites that produce publications like this should really really think carefully before they post about stuff like this based on research they didn&#039;t read properly. The reason Nielson is so good is because they never comment outside the sphere of their research, and make sure that any data they do produce is founded - unlike eMarketer Daily. 
Oddly enough, comments aren&#039;t allowed on eMarketer. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is truly amazing. Not sure about my BS metre, but my FUA metre is certainly hitting the top (brownie points for working out the NSFW acronym).<br />
The websites that produce publications like this should really really think carefully before they post about stuff like this based on research they didn&#39;t read properly. The reason Nielson is so good is because they never comment outside the sphere of their research, and make sure that any data they do produce is founded &#8211; unlike eMarketer Daily.<br />
Oddly enough, comments aren&#39;t allowed on eMarketer. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kieran Cooper, Facul</title>
		<link>http://dmaemailblog.com/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieran Cooper, Facul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dmablog.designs.dotmailer.co.uk/2009/03/17/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-relating-to-email/#comment-25</guid>
		<description>I couldn&#039;t agree more, Dela. I&#039;m just at South by South West Interactive in Austin, Texas where all the &#039;bright young things&#039; have seemingly long since come to the conclusion that email is dead - without thinking that how fundamentally embedded it is into the social networking scene. And even if under 25s aren&#039;t using it much, what medium do they expect to receive their flight confirmations or requests about changing delivery times - let alone their password reset notifications. Sure email is going to change - it would be fossilised if it didn&#039;t - but I can&#039;t see it dying just yet. (Fingers crossed big time, seeing as it&#039;s how I (and you) make my living!) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#39;t agree more, Dela. I&#39;m just at South by South West Interactive in Austin, Texas where all the &#39;bright young things&#39; have seemingly long since come to the conclusion that email is dead &#8211; without thinking that how fundamentally embedded it is into the social networking scene. And even if under 25s aren&#39;t using it much, what medium do they expect to receive their flight confirmations or requests about changing delivery times &#8211; let alone their password reset notifications. Sure email is going to change &#8211; it would be fossilised if it didn&#39;t &#8211; but I can&#39;t see it dying just yet. (Fingers crossed big time, seeing as it&#39;s how I (and you) make my living!) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

