The night Sally sent to everyone

The lesson: Sending more is not a strategy · about 2 minutes, 15 clicks
The night Sally sentto everyoneA bedtime story about email. One lesson, about two minutes.Review My Emails Sally SendSends to everyone, all the timeHer list, as her dashboard sees it50,000 Sally's planSend twice as often. Get twice as much.x2 Send Her fifty thousand, drawn as one hundredKai DriftwoodStopped reading a year agoUna SubscribeAlready leftBo UnceAddress stopped working What is still real37,50020 to 30 of every 100, in a single yeariEmail Almanac 005.011.003, a typical list decays 20 to 30 percent a year Bounces Sally noticedNone of themQuiet. Someone was watchingPhil TerrThe filter He never reads the subject line. He watches the room.Opened it?Clicked it?Wrote back?iEmail Almanac 021.002.002, providers weigh engagement signals into sender reputation, so a large unengaged group drags placement down for everyone on the list How much Phil Terr trusts her, send by send123456iEmail Almanac 021.006.015, more frequency to lukewarm readers speeds up the damage, and inbox placement falls even as the send count rises What Sally's dashboard still said50,000Nothing looked wrong. Someone paid for itMarina TidewellOpens everything. Buys.SpamMarina's copy, with the rest Sent1st send2nd3rd4thReached a real person1st send2nd3rd4thiEmail Almanac 021.012.002, the second send rarely gets half the attention of the first, and revenue per send peaks at a moderate frequency and then falls SAVE THISSending more to a list you have never cleaneddoes not reach more people. It teaches the filters to stoptrusting you, and the people who wanted you are the ones who lose. Sally did not need a bigger list.She needed one she could trust.One she can trust50,000Clean your first 1,000 free, inside your account.reviewmyemails.com/get-startedThe end. The nightSally sentto everyoneA bedtime storyabout email.Review My Emails Sally SendSends to everyoneHer list, as she sees it50,000 Sally's planSend twice as often.Get twice as much. Send Her fifty thousand, as one hundred Kai DriftwoodStopped readingUna SubscribeAlready leftBo UnceAddress stopped working What is still real37,50020 to 30 of every 100, in a yeariEmail Almanac 005.011.003, a typical list decays 20 to 30 percent a year Bounces Sally noticedNone of them Someone was watchingPhil TerrThe filter He watches the room.Opened it?Clicked it?Wrote back?iEmail Almanac 021.002.002, providers weigh engagement signals into sender reputation, so a large unengaged group drags placement down for everyone on the list How much he trusts her123456 Her dashboard still said50,000 Someone paid for itMarina TidewellOpens everything. Buys.SpamMarina's copy, with the rest SentReached a person1st send, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4thiEmail Almanac 021.012.002, the second send rarely gets half the attention of the first, and revenue per send peaks at a moderate frequency and then falls SAVE THISSending more to alist you have nevercleaned does notreach more people.It teaches the filtersto stop trusting you. Sally did not needa bigger list.She needed oneshe could trust.One she can trust50,000The end.

The night Sally sent to everyone.

A bedtime story about email. One lesson, about two minutes.

Once upon a time, Sally Send had a list of fifty thousand people.

Sally had a plan.
If fifty thousand was good, then sending twice as often would be twice as good.

So one night, Sally sent to everyone.

But not everyone was still there.
Kai Driftwood stopped reading a year ago. Una Subscribe had already left. Bo Unce's address stopped working months back.

A list goes bad quietly.
In a single year, twenty to thirty of every hundred addresses stop being real.

And not one of them made a sound.

So who noticed?

Someone noticed. Not the people. Phil Terr, the filter.

Phil Terr never reads your subject line.
He watches the room. Does anyone open it? Click it? Write back? Or does it just sit there?

So the more Sally sent to the people who were not listening, the more Phil Terr believed that nobody wanted her mail.

Sally never saw it happen.

So who paid for it?

Marina Tidewell paid for it.
Marina opens everything. Marina buys.
And Marina's copy went to the spam folder, with all the rest.

That is the whole trick of it.
Sending more did not reach more. It reached fewer.
The second email of the week rarely gets half the attention of the first, and by the fourth or fifth you are making more unsubscribes than sales.

Sending more to a list you have never cleaned does not reach more people.
It teaches the filters to stop trusting you, and the people who wanted to hear from you are the ones who lose.

Sally did not need a bigger list.
She needed one she could trust.
The end.

1 of 15
Where this story comes from

The cast

Every name is from the demo names library (01-library/demo-names.md). Nobody here is real.

Sally Sendthe sender, who sends to everyone all the time
Marina Tidewellthe loyal subscriber who pays for it
Kai Driftwoodgone quiet
Una Subscribealready left
Bo Uncethe address that stopped working
Phil Terrthe filter, who is watching

The facts, and where each one is from

Email facts come only from the Email Almanac, cited by question number. Each number on the stage carries the same citation in its i.

AlmanacQuestionUsed for
005.011.003What is a typical list decay rate?20 to 30 percent of a list goes bad in a year
021.002.002Do inactive subscribers hurt deliverability?providers weigh engagement signals into sender reputation, so a large unengaged segment drags placement down for everyone on the list
021.006.015Does send more equal reach more?more frequency to lukewarm people speeds up the damage, and inbox placement falls even as the send count rises
021.012.002Is sending more emails the way to win?the second send rarely gets half the engagement of the first, and by the fourth or fifth you make more unsubscribes than sales

What we left out on purpose