How do you feel about email spying? (open/click rate tracking)
I'm fiercely dedicated to running The Pseudocode without spy pixels in emails (or even analytics on the site, though that doesn't have the same privacy implications).
How do you all feel about this?
Do you need to know when your customers/users/clients read their emails?
What do you do with this information and how does it provide value to your customers?
Edit: I just want to make something clear. I don't share every point that DHH makes and this discussion isn't intended to make attacks in the same way his Tweets seem to. I'm interested in debating this in our industry, with the Indie Hackers who get to drive Big Companies to make change. I always default to assuming that we all have have good intentions. Thanks for engaging in this discussion!
How to Publish a Blog Post on HackerNoon (Free for Founders)
I confess I don't really see the issue. Sometimes it's helpful and informative to know which emails get more reads, and which links get more clicks, as that information can help you improve your email content.
…and what's the tangible harm for readers, exactly?
From what I can tell there is a small percentage of the population who really doesn't like tracking of any kind, which is fair. But the vast majority of people don't mind, including people who are informed about how it all works.
I like DHH personally and have mostly pleasant interactions with him, and I think his opinions on this are sincere. However, he also has a real monetary dog in this fight, where he stands to gain financially if he can shift moral norms in this area. I think a lot of the push to popularize terms like "spy pixel" and publicly shame those who don't agree wouldn't be happening otherwise.
I agree mostly with this, I think the line is drawn (for myself at least) when those insights are used to send follow up emails about why you're not opening / reading the emails. Whats your thoughts on that practice?
Agree 100% (besides the pleasant interactions with DHH)
Just to iterate the point here, both sides of this argument have a real monetary dog in this fight.
The smallest tangible harm is a creepy feeling one may get when a "hey, I see you read that last email, care to follow up" message in our inbox. Next, is normalizing data mining in general. Jane Doe may not be using her newsletter's open/click rates for harm, but by normalizing it we're kowtowing that data collection is the price we must pay to have an equitable experience of the internet. On the far end of the spectrum is the collection and aggregation of open/click rates with other data points collected on an individual that then can be leveraged for surveillance.
Open/click rates are not the most important privacy concern for people like us, but it is a part of the internet privacy fabric. This is not a binary issue: analytics vs no analytics, the debate opens the door to discussing a range of outcomes.
Open/click rates are a particularly different topic than other forms of analytics because an email inbox (v.s. a website), is a different arena in which privacy deserves acknowledgement. I think we owe it ourselves to have this discussion as an industry. Many of us who send emails to customers did not make a decision about privacy, we accepted the default—we've let larger companies decide for us.
As an Indie Hacker, questions I might ask: is there a niche here that we can enter and innovate in? Can we acknowledge the moral argument of that niche as being valid, despite our personal bias? Can we engage in debate without feeling attacked beyond what is normal competition? Do we need (or even know how to use) these tools or have I added needless complexity to my system?
I think it's a great point that both sides of the issue have monetary incentives. That said, I doubt for the majority of email senders there's really that much money to be lost by not optimizing their emails. For Basecamp, however, this issue is absolutely critical to their new product's bottom line.
I'm not convinced that email inboxes are all that different than websites when it comes to analytics and privacy. They're different in terms of security — I can log into my email inbox and read what's there, and it's of the utmost importance to me that nobody else can do that. This is absolutely the case. But again, this is security. It has nothing to do with banning analytics tools.
If I visit someone's website with Google Analytics, is that really a different arena than my email inbox? Colloquially we say that I'm "on their website," and thus it's okay for them to do whatever, just as if I'm visiting someone else's house. But the analogy doesn't hold up, because that's not how most analytics code works.
When I "visit" someone's website, I'm merely requesting some files, and they can code those files to run JavaScript in my browser, which phones home and sends them data from my computer. It's more the case that "they're in my browser" than that "I'm on their website."
And my browser should be at least as private as my email inbox, right? I don't see why one would deserve some special level of privacy that the other doesn't. They're both equally, incredibly, private places. So it follows that whatever standard I accept while browsing the web is the same standard I'll accept while checking my email, and vice versa.
And personally, I don't consider basic analytics tracking to cross the privacy bar. If I visit a website, I'm happy for creators to know that I visited and track which links I click. If I subscribe to an email newsletter, I feel the same.
Now there's a legitimate debate to be had whether or not any of this tracking — web or email — should exist in the first place. I wouldn't be particularly sad if it all went away.
(But it would have to all go away for this to work, not just bits and pieces of it. If one email marketing tool allows open tracking and another doesn't, the former will likely win the market.)
Alternatively, we can also rely on the market to do some work here. If email privacy really is important to people, then something like Hey.com can carve out a niche and build a solid business with these people as its customers. And someone could do the same in the browser space as well. In fact we already see this with lots of tools that block requests to Google Analytics, ad networks, etc.
But I don't think the right level to spur change here is at the individual practitioner level — the millions of people creating websites, sending newsletters, etc. These people have no control over the wider ecosystem. I also can't agree with turning this into a moral debate, as it's clearly more an issue of preference than morality. The moralizing also leads to lots of public shaming of makers and founders, which imo is more harmful than the tracking itself.
If DHH and crew really want to make a difference, they should be directing their ire at Google, MailChimp, etc., rather than at random indie hackers who are just trying to run their businesses.
Attacking small businesses is an easy target for DHH. Having a pop at Google and making an enemy of the email service that provides 1/7 of the world with email is a bad idea for Hey. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
If the Basecamp guys genuinely feel this is a real issue (their own vested interests aside) they should lead with an educational approach, rather than – as you say – attacking businesses who are just trying to make a living.
I used to have a lot of respect for these guys, but I think the behaviour around this is completely piss poor.
I appreciate you taking the time to talk about this.
I agree that the financial incentives are unbalanced when framed as Basecamp v Indie Hackers. I can't speak for DHH, but it's the tools that enable open/click rates in emails that have the real financial incentive, and thus are more inclined, to maintain the status quo. I agree with you, I think DHH attacking Indie Hackers is misguided. Makers sometimes don't know that these companies have enable this by default or even how to use the tools effectively—meaning that there's even less financial gain to be had for them. But, I disagree that collectively, we do not get to have control of this wider ecosystem. We shouldn't be spurred into it by threats and shame, however.
Of course there are privacy concerns that span across the internet, and I agree with you that email privacy is such a small tiny piece that won't necessarily move the needle on its own. However, in some jurisdictions, there are different regulations for websites and emails (though I conceit that legislation doesn't always take into account what we practitioners know to be true or useful). Enforcing unsubscribe links and physical addresses in bulk email (for example), is illustrative of the division between requesting a website in my browser and information being pushed to my computer. Change happens gradually and internet privacy is a big space, it won't all go away at once (though GDRP and CCPA took huge bites), it will be piecemeal.
Lastly, I agree that this doesn't have to be an argument of morality. There are those of us in positions where we can effect change and there are those who don't get to have a say in whether or not our preferences met. Do open/click rates do more harm than good? It sounds like that's not quite quantifiable at the moment. Let's let the market do the work, as you say! A victory in my mind would be a more thoughtful practice of informed consent (with this and in a lot of other privacy arenas). I believe we can and should innovate towards this, but this is just my preference.
Thanks again, @csallen, I think we agree more than I was able to articulate before this conversation, and I apologize if my viewpoints seem or seemed hostile. I respect you and your innumerable contributions to the world of online businesses and I appreciate your patience.
I think informed consent is a great option for those who want to present it, and I actually am rooting for Hey.com to do well, even though I think DHH is being somewhat of an ass on Twitter.
I appreciate the healthy discussion! I don't think you were hostile in any way, and hopefully I haven't been, and others haven't been either. It's great to have a place where we can talk about tough subjects openly and sincerely.
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's hyperbolic marketing strategy for the Basecamp guys to sell their new email product. They used tracking pixels in Basecamp themselves until they started this charade.
They are naming and shaming businesses on Twitter who use 'spy' pixels for their own profit, potentially damaging their business (and amidst a global crisis on the verge of a recession). These businesses probably don't see themselves as doing anything wrong in the first place and they're being publicly demonised to line DHH & Fried's pockets.
I'm 100% happy for list owners to track my open/clicks, if it helps them deliver better content, then it ultimately benefits me.
These stats are in most cases are an aggregated % anyway, the same as CTR or conversion rate on a website.
If Jonny Marketer cares enough about me to diligently comb through his Mailchimp report and decipher that I opened his email at 4:52pm on a Tuesday then good for him, I'm flattered someone cares more about my email habits than I do.
I do, however, worry that this will lead down a rabbit hole of trying to blanket-ban web analytics, which ultimately screws a lot of businesses. It's fine for the Basecamp guys because they're established, but many smaller businesses depend on their email lists and analytics.
If this is what the world considers a problem, then there is something seriously wrong. There are much greater privacy threats out there that should be solved before we worry email open rates.
👏👏👏
I’m in an interesting position to chime in on this topic in that I was an early employee at Litmus.com and helped re-architect their Email Analytics product, and I also started Consentry.org, a non-profit software company dedicated to respecting user consent preferences.
At the end of the day, I don’t believe the use of any technology is black or white, good or bad. It’s more important to consider the intent of the company and whether on not they’re acting in good faith.
Let’s face it, analytics are really helpful. It’s great to know your open rate so that you can iterate on your subject lines and email copy. It’s a great experience for the user if you can follow up with a reminder if they forget to open a previous one.
On the other hand, there are bad actors in email as well. Folks who buy massive lists and spam them with offers. Open one email, and they know you’re a real person and they can spam you some more.
Gmail has done a good job of managing pixels from unknown senders, which gives control back to you as the end user.
However in the next couple of years, we will be focusing on fine-grained consent control at Consentry. Asking users for consent, for example, when they enter their email address. Similarly to how apps on your phone ask you for device consent at just the right time.
Building a trusting relationship with your users is the basis of ethical data usage, and it’s also the right thing to do. Respect your users, and they’ll respect you!
I love this take. It's not black and white. Analytics is merely a tool. Like any other tool, it can be used for good or bad. It can be respectful while helping to improve the quality of products for everyone involved. Or it can be invasive, overbearing, creepy, spammy, etc.
People who have a clue about it and don't like it will most often than not disable graphics in emails. As simple as that. If you don't like being marketed at and don't disable images, don't subscribe?
Having just launched a newsletter - https://topstonks.com
I'm finding that being able to see what people click on, and which emails they open, is immensely valuable in helping to make the product better. Isn't the whole idea behind a newsletter to provide as much value as possible?
I do not like the idea of email hacking as well as using such SMS tracker apps https://celltrackingapps.com/sms-tracker/. This is a violation of all rights and personal freedom
(Context: I run Buttondown, which allows ‘email spying’ ... and allows you to turn it off.)
I think informed consent is the most important aspect here, sure, but another aspect is simply that most newsletters don’t need email spying. If you’re writing a newsletter to friends or family or to a small audience of individuals, then your click and open rates aren’t that important; if you’re writing a newsletter to a loyal audience in a subject matter that you want to establish yourself as an expert in, it’s more important that you spend time editing and improving your content than poring over analytics.
I feel okay sending emails with trackers as long as the other party knows about it and approves it. Similar to whatsapp.
I'm more concerned about these email trackers getting all the access they can get to our Gsuite. https://www.indiehackers.com/post/how-do-you-feel-about-streak-gmail-plugin-requesting-access-to-everything-in-your-gsuite-233402ffec
I dont care if you see if i opened your email or not
@csallen, @Primer, et al.
I think it's a privileged position we have to "not care." It's the same bias that presents itself in many discussions of online privacy and I believe we owe it to ourselves to become aware of as many potential impacts that spying trackers in emails can have on people who may not be us.
The worth of privacy varies widely, which is why I think we've done a disservice by not defaulting to giving it more value. We love to posit that "probably not many people care," and that those who do are being melodramatic, but don't we (who use these types of technologies) have a vested interest in arguing that point?
The whole idea isn't that open/click rates in emails are always used nefariously, or even that they are the most important privacy concern. The point is that I measure success in ways other than revenue, growth, click rates, conversion, etc. We've normalized this idea that there is only one way of doing things, and what I'm interested in is how we can innovate to do things differently—some of us are hackers, after all.
Ask your customers to voluntarily opt-in to open/click rate tracking in their email. I'm not a marketer, but I'm sure you can come up with some copy that makes it make sense. If people like DHH are wrong, why is anyone worried about his ideas out competing? I think people on both sides of this argument have real monetary dogs in this fight, but I find one side a lot easier to stand on than the other.
I responded to your other comment above, but I'll respond to this one too, because I think it's a good one and raises some valid points.
Again, I agree that we as creators have a vested interest in the point we're arguing. But I know many of us felt the same way before we'd ever created any products ourselves. Many of us feel the same way when we visit other people's apps and subscribe to other people's newsletters. We understand the tradeoffs, and we're straightforwardly happy to make them, even when we're not the biggest beneficiaries.
So I don't think it's necessary to speculate that "the other side" is only doing this out of self-interest or greed or whatever the implication is.
Nor is it necessary to have all of this charged language, public shaming, and moralizing. This isn't a moral issue for most people. That includes most informed people. I'd bet that the vast majority of people simply don't care.
(Incoming long digression about morality…)
Morals and norms aren't objective. They differ between peoples and cultures. Hindus consider cows sacred, and India has the lowest rate of beef consumption in the world, but in most nations people eat burgers without a second thought.
Another example: there exist tribes in which it's taboo to be alone in the same room with a cousin of the opposite sex. Of course in most cultures, that's perfectly fine. Is someone "right" here? I don't think so. It's arbitrary. Norms are subjective.
But it's important to note that in these tribes, people actually do feel grossed out by the thought of being alone with a cousin. It really does feel wrong to them. Such is the power of norms.
I suspect the same thing is happening here with this email privacy issue.
Jonathan Haidt writes about the 6 moral foundations: things like care, loyalty, freedom, etc. One of them is the sanctity foundation, which is built on the desire not to have one's sacred places violated by contaminants. You can tell when it's activated based on the language that's being used. Take some of DHH's recent tweets for example:
There are dozens more like this. It's clear from his language that these Internet privacy issues are violating his sanctity foundation. To him, his inbox is a sacred place that should be kept free from the contamination of analytics and tracking tools. For DHH and others, it really does seem "icky" or "gross" or "disgusting" to have one's email opens tracked.
But for everyone outside that group, it's totally fine. We don't have strong moral beliefs here except for in more extreme cases. Thus we're very unlikely to push for society to develop a new norm, any more than you're likely to push for society to develop norms to stop people from being alone with their cousins.
I find it hard to believe that DHH finds it disgusting given that Basecamp used 'spy pixels' in their emails until August 2019, then literally 4 months later he has become a privacy crusader launching a new PAID email service to combat the very thing he was doing for years.
Similar to the whole 'investment is evil' stance they had for years, before taking investment.
$$$.
This comment was deleted a year ago.
I think it would be nice for users to at least have the option to turn off tracking if they wish. I'm not really aware of any mailing list providers that have that option.
But yeah, on the whole, I think most people probably don't care too much about having their views/clicks tracked. Of all the privacy-related things to be concerned about, this is pretty far down the list imo.
Yeah I really don't care, and csallen makes a good point about trusting someone with a vested interest. The way I see it if handing over information about which emails I've read helps companies send me better and less spammy emails then fine by me.
This comment was deleted 4 years ago.
This is simply not true.
You can have the best product in the world, but you need to tell people you have the best product if you want to make sales.
Buying behaviour does not line up either with this idea either. Most people do not land on a website and make an instant purchase. Email marketing is a huge component for many businesses sales funnel.
This comment was deleted a year ago.