Posted by: Daniel Levis
September 16, 2009
Issue #760

Split Test SHOCKER!

Pervasive E-mail Marketing
Myth – SHATTERED…

Dear Web Business-Builder,

Last week’s article – with 70 + comments – obviously hit a nerve.

Overwhelmingly, Total Package readers lean towards the belief – or at least the suspicion – that when it comes to e-mail marketing, single opt-in is more profitable than double opt-in.

In truth, I doubt there is a cut and dried – always true – answer to this question. There are just too many variables.

The right thing to do is to test and see which alternative is better for you in the specific marketing situation you’re involved with.

If you read last week’s article, then you know that’s exactly what I’ve done …

For the past year I have been split-testing double opt-in versus single opt-in lead gen. And now, I’m testing the relative responsiveness of those two lists.

Before I reveal the results, I should tell you a little more about my test …

Both of my split-tested lead collection pages look identical. There are only two choices to make on these pages. Opt-in, or leave.

And both pages say explicitly that the promised freebie will be e-mailed to you. This is important, because it minimizes people putting in bogus addresses. If they think the next page will deliver the freebie, they may be inclined to type jibberish@gobbldygook.com into the form, which does you no good.

Upon opting in, the single opt-in prospects immediately see a long copy sales page. At the top of the sales page, they read copy that a) confirms the freebie (product sample) has been sent to them via e-mail, and b) Invites them to peruse the complete package by continuing to read.

The double opt-in prospects are directed to a completely different page. This page is intended to sell them on completing the next step in the sales funnel – confirming their subscription.

It says in big red font, “You MUST CONFIRM your e-mail address before I can send you my [freebie name inserted here].” Then it goes on to tell them explicitly what to do. “Go to your in-box right now and look for an e-mail from me [Daniel Levis] with the subject line: [subject line inserted here].”

Additionally, I do a voice over explaining the following:

1. Exactly what they should do with the e-mail when they find it in their in-box …
2. Why this step is for their own good (protects you from spam) …
3. That there’s a small chance the confirmation e-mail might be delayed if traffic is heavy and to watch for it, because …
4. Without clicking on the link inside, you will NOT gain access to the promised widget and the [benefits inserted here] it brings you.

This page is really important. If you skip it, or do a half-ass job of it, your confirmation rate will suck.

Once opted-in, the single opt-in prospects get a welcome e-mail with a link to the freebie. The double opt-in prospects get the confirmation e-mail. When they click on the confirmation link inside the confirmation e-mail, they are taken to the same sales page described above. And another e-mail with a link to the freebie lands in their in-box.

As explained in my previous article, the double opt-in page resulted in 37% less leads than the single opt-in page at the point of subscription.

A year later, the gap has narrowed, but the double opt-in list is still trailing the single opt-in list in terms of number of subscribers by 27%.

Now, you’d think the single opt-in list would have the advantage, wouldn’t you? But take a look at the results of my mailing:

When I e-mailed the same message to both of these lists, the double opt-in list yielded 41% more opens … 46% more clicks … and snagged $773 in sales – while the single opt-in list struck out.

For me, in this selling situation, double opt-in seems likely to be the more profitable route. It defies logic, except for one largely invisible detail – delivery.

Most of my prospects receive my e-mail via an ISP mail server. And these servers sort mail based on the reputation of the server sending the mail.

Since single opt-in servers send a lot of undeliverable mail (bogus addresses and typos) and spam (subscriptions created by someone other than the recipient), the receiving end servers assign a lower reputation to these sending servers than those that send only deliverable, verified mail (double opt-in servers).

To me, this is the only logical explanation for the above results.

Does this guarantee that double opt-in always delivers a better result? No. Here are a few possible exceptions:

• When your copy is ineffective at getting your prospects to confirm their subscription: If you are doing double opt-in, and you fail to apply the persuasion principles you’re learning here in THE TOTAL PACKAGE to actively and aggressively convince your prospects to confirm – chances are you will not be happy with double opt-in. The number of leads lost will outweigh the delivery advantages, and single opt-in will yield a better result.
• When immediate revenues are worth more to you than future revenues: If you’re selling a low ticket item, and you are more interested in the short term revenue from selling that one product than the longer term revenue obtained from the sale of future products, then removing the additional hurdle of getting your prospect to confirm their subscription may result in an increase in sales for you.
• When your e-mail service provider is dropping the ball: If confirmation messages are not being delivered promptly, it will kill your confirmation percentages. The messages get buried under other incoming messages and become more likely to be ignored.

I’m sure there are more potential stumbling blocks you may face.

Bottom line: You have to test for yourself.

Is it possible to have your
cake and eat it too?

While I’ve never tried this, I’ve had conversions with a couple of venders who make the following suggestion for those determined to get the best of both worlds.

According to my rep at 1ShoppingCart, you have the option of setting up your campaigns as single opt-in, and then presenting your prospects with a confirmation link. 

If a prospect clicks on the confirmation link, they will be mailed from a double opt-in server, and you will enjoy superior deliverability when mailing that prospect. If they don’t click on the confirmation link, they will be mailed from a single opt-in server. Lower deliverability – but hey, you still get to mail them.

To set this up, I recommend building your campaign “as if” it were a double opt-in campaign (see above). Instead of fulfilling the freebie in the Day 0 message, pretend it’s a confirmation message.

To create the link, you must build your Day 0 message as html and insert the merge code %$optinlink$% under the appropriate copy.

InfusionSoft reportedly has a similar option, though I have not tried it either.

Can these hybrid strategies improve your e-mail results … make you more money … and put a smile on your face?

You have to test.

Until next time, Good Selling!

Daniel Levis
Editor, The Web Marketing Advisor
THE TOTAL PACKAGE

Looking for resources related to this article? Try some of these.

Looking for more of Daniel’s articles? Check these out.

Looking for past issues of The Total Package? Click here for our archives.

Want to share or reprint this article? Feel free. Just give us full attribution and a link to our Home Page when you do.

Attribution Statement: This article was first published in The Total Package. To sign-up to receive your own FREE subscription to The Total Package and claim four FREE money making e-books go to www.makepeacetotalpackage.com.

---

41 Comments »

1. Comment by Jack — September 16, 2009 @ 9:53 am

   Please elaborate more on actual sales conversions beyond just this example. In the one mailing example, there was only (1) single sale. That’s really not very conclusive. In fact, it’s not even remotely motivating or encouraging, given the overall numbers. How about some cumulative sales stats beyond this one example? A year’s worth of testing effort with reference to only a single sale seems like a huge letdown.

2. Comment by Daniel Levis — September 16, 2009 @ 9:59 am

   The sales figure is meaningless. Look at the open rate and clicks. Do your own testing.

3. Comment by Mark Foster — September 16, 2009 @ 10:08 am

   Yes, I agree with the comment by “Jack” that…

   to base the entire statistics on just one sale and one mailing over the course of a whole year is quite unconvincing.

4. Comment by Caleb Osborne — September 16, 2009 @ 10:24 am

   And I agree with Daniel to do your own testing

5. Comment by Sarah clachar — September 16, 2009 @ 10:28 am

   Daniel,

   Thank you for the testing. I would add one thing. You attribute the increased open/click through rate of the double optin solely to better deliverability.

   What about the possibility that the double opt-in subscribers may be more qualified traffic? More interested in your product by that degree of difference that they went through the extra step to get on board?

   There’s traffic and then there’s conversions. There’s the size of your list . . . and then there’s how qualified your list is.

   Worth considering.

6. Comment by Daniel Levis — September 16, 2009 @ 10:39 am

   Sarah, that makes sense. Yet another variable. I’m not sure how significant it is. My thinking is that those who would have double opted if given the chance are still in the single opt in file. The fact that someone takes the trouble to confirm — to me at least, and I could be wrong — seems a relatively insignificant qualifier in the larger scheme of things.

7. Comment by Jack — September 16, 2009 @ 11:12 am

   “The sales figure is meaningless?” Maybe if you’re only doing this as a hobby, or work for a Madison Avenue ad agency, I guess. Saying, “Look at the open rate and clicks” is like a shopkeeper being satisfied with getting lots of people to walk into his/her store and just being satisfied with that, even if they buy little or nothing. Business is about making money, not just getting momentary attention.

   This is simply non-conclusive and out of focus.

8. Pingback by The Single vs Double Opt-in Debate Put to Bed? (Nearly) — September 16, 2009 @ 11:20 am

   [...] his results from split-testing single vs. double opt-in subscribers over the course of a year: Split Test SHOCKER! | The Total Package (no affil.) Unsuprisingly he got more subscribers using single opt-in (37% more in fact). The [...]

9. Comment by Daniel Levis — September 16, 2009 @ 11:31 am

   Jack, I agree with you that the test is small scale. And did I say anything about “conclusive”? I did not. The point of this post was simply to show you that in this particular situation, double opt-in is likely to be more profitable. I’m sorry you don’t feel you got your money’s worth.

10. Comment by Barry Yarkoni — September 16, 2009 @ 11:38 am

    As Isaac Asimov wrote… “Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.”

    But lots to think about!

11. Comment by Shaun O'Reilly — September 16, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

    Firstly thanks for taking the time to do a split-test for
    your list and share your results for the single vs double
    opt-in.

    Your ideas around the reasons why the results are as they
    are is useful too.

    Like some others, I found the lack of focus on the sales
    results data a bit of an anti-climax. At the end of the
    day, getting at least 40 measureable actions on the sales
    action would be required to be statistically relevant (as
    I’m sure you’re aware).

    It’s important to note that until I split-test my own list
    my results could vary.

    Thanks anyway for at least stimulating the discussion and
    giving real world split-test results on the effect on open
    and click-through rates.

    By the way, with Infusionsoft it’s possible to do what I
    call a ‘pseudo-double opt-in.’ In this case, it’s possible
    to tailor the first e-mail to look like the download link
    that also acts as the confirmation link. You have complete
    control of the text within that e-mail too.

    This way, you enter the conversation that’s in the
    prospect’s mind and focus on getting them to download
    the product rather than what some may find as being
    the strange confirmation conversation.

    For example, at first blush, a subscription to Perry
    Marshall’s Google Adwords 5-day course looks like a
    single opt-in. But it’s actually double opt-in via
    Infusionsoft.

    I hope this helps.

    Dedicated to your success,

    *Shaun O’Reilly

12. Comment by Jeff Bode — September 16, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    Although, I would also like to see testing over more mailings,

    I’m glad you conducted this test and I’m glad I’ve been using double opt in for my email list.

    I think single opt in is good for after someone buys a product.

    Thanks,

    Jeff Bode

13. Comment by paul — September 16, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

    the lesson: test

    Even if the article was done on a larger scale and had a statistically significant number of sales conversions, it’s still only one list, one market, one offer.

    If Daniel came back and said double-opt in had 227 sales, single had 150 sales, you’d still have to test it for your “stuff.”

    I think Daniel is telling us, via an entertaining story: TEST

    The insight on deliverability certainly is food for thought.

    I don’t think the article was intended to give an end-all-be-all definitive answer on which is “better”.

14. Comment by Connie — September 16, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

    >A year’s worth of testing effort with reference to only a single sale seems like a huge letdown.

    I could not agree more…!

    Daniel, didn’t you say you tested this list for a full year? Why then disclose only these numbers? I imagine you have sent more than one mailing? If you can’t disclose all the numbers, fine, but at least say “30 mailings were sent and the double opt-in list was XX% more profitable”.

    Conversion rates based on 29 clicks are totally meaningless. I know we are not paying for the advice here..:-)..but if you are going to build up all that suspense, then at least deliver something that allows people to reach a conclusion on the matter.

15. Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

    I agree with Jack and the others who have commented in kind.

    But rather than a long rant, how about a short rant and then the real reason you want to double opt-in.

    First, I’m a HUGE fan of Clayton and have a ton of respect for him, his work and his teachings.

    Many people who come here know a ton about what they are talking about. On the other hand, many are new. And this group comes here to learn.

    The last thing I want a new person in business or marketing to think is that 1 sale will give them the test results they need! And some people will honestly think that unless taught otherwise.

    Anyway, here’s the real reason to double opt-in folks:

    One day, maybe next week, maybe two years down the road, maybe 10, legislation will change and it will effect how we are able to communicate with our lists - potentially even customers.

    Now I’m sure you want a list that you are legally allowed to mail without being banged for several hundred dollars per complaint right? I mean what’s the fun in that?

    Changes like these literally erased the fax marketing industry overnight. And in just the last 60 days these same types of changes are virtually erasing the automated voice marketing industry - and I’m not talking VM SPAM. I’m talking about Fortune 500 companies who used these services to communicate with their clients.

    They can’t anymore… Why? Because they went after the larger numbers of subscribers rather than getting people to opt-in properly. And now there lists are D.E.A.D. dead.

    Look, these legislative changes have been on the books for years trying to become law. They are out of our control.

    If they become law, they have the power to virtually turn a multimillion dollar company into a company that can’t afford light it’s building - in a matter of days.

    Take it from a guy who’s been providing internet services and advice to Fortune 500 companies since 1994 - you care about this fact far more than anything else if you are looking to build a long term sustainable business.

    Peace.

16. Comment by Jason Leister — September 16, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

    Hey Daniel,

    Congrats for actually DOING the testing that so many people
    talk about.

    And who cares if you only got one sale? Who cares if you
    got 80 sales?

    Neither would be statistically significant for MY
    business… and you mention that fact very clearly.

    I originally wrote that single optin vs. double optin post
    you featured (thank you!!) to try to wake some folks up and
    get them to question the barriers/boxes/limits they’ve
    accepted as truth.

    It’s not really about single/double opt-in, it’s about
    THINKING for yourself and disconnecting from the collective
    marketing mind and its treasure trove of marketing “secrets”
    that worked for someone ELSE, with some OTHER product, at
    some OTHER time.

    I spent enough time and money copying those folks and
    wondering why it wasn’t working for ME. (Someone should
    write a book called, “My Tests Aren’t Your Tests So Hands
    Off the Results Suckah. They’re MINE.”)

    When I actually fired up the brain and used my THINKING
    skills to come up with my own ideas… that’s when the light at
    the end of the tunnel started to shine.

    For me, it’s insane to use a double optin system I know
    (because I track) is leaking 30% of my leads… especially
    when I know the exact dollar and cent value I had to invest
    in PPC costs to GET that set of eyeballs to my site or the site of
    my clients… AND when I know what that lead is worth to my
    business in the first 12 months.

    For every $30,000 I plop down in PPC I know I’m flushing
    $10,000 right down the drain, not including lost sales.

    Kind of like banging your head against the wall and then,
    once you get used to the pain, continuing to bang your head
    simply because that’s the routine you’ve fallen into.

    I know you reminded everyone to test for themselves in your
    post, but… let’s get real: testing is a pain in the
    butt… especially with a lot of the tools that are
    available today.

    You have to actually WANT to do it.

    That’s the real work that really separates the wheat from
    the chaff.

    Another thing I’ve found to be valuable in the marketing
    business is this:

    Never accept someone else’s premise as though you don’t have
    other choices.

    Single vs. Double Optin?

    Who says that has to be the choice?

    In my original post, I chose single opt-in over double optin
    because it’s a no brainer for ME.

    That’s not to say double opt-in is always nuts… as long as it’s
    not required for me to talk to my subscribers. (THAT’S when
    it’s nuts.)

    Like you mention, Infusionsoft lets you use SINGLE opt-in so
    you can at least talk to the poor guy or gal who you PAID to
    show up at your site.

    Then, over time, you can develop a separate campaign JUST to
    reconfirm his/her subscription and move it into double
    opt-in nirvana or whatever.

    As of my last conversation to reconfirm this with them
    (about 60 days ago), you don’t take a deliverability hit for
    this like with 1shoppingcart.

    When you’re spending a LOT of money (often other people’s
    money) these kinds of decisions really make a difference…
    and the more you KNOW about the choices you have the better
    off you’ll be.

    Thanks for following through with the results Daniel!

17. Pingback by Net Biz In Buzz » ‘Split Test Shocker’ – ‘The Total Package’ — September 17, 2009 @ 3:16 am

    [...] Split Test Shocker!… [...]

18. Comment by Connie — September 17, 2009 @ 3:32 am

    >>It’s not really about single/double opt-in, it’s about
    THINKING for yourself

    Oh really? So we have to spend 20 minutes reading 2 articles, and wait one week for the “results” (I actually wrote it in my agenda in order not to forget), but then we don’t get any meaningful results because we have to think for ourselves? Wow…that makes total sense. I’m sure that’s why people come to this site.

    Daniel Levis over-promised and under-delivered. I have no idea what he is thinking here. As online marketers, we live by the numbers. How can present to this audience and demonstrate something based on 29 clicks? That’s an amateur move if ever there was one.

    If this was a live presentation, he would be booed off the stage.

19. Comment by Connie — September 17, 2009 @ 3:40 am

    Oh, and stay tuned for my Adwords SHOCKER article, where I SHATTER the myth of using relevant keywords.

    See, using DATING keywords IN JAPANESE, I manage to skyrocket my click through rate in the US HEALTH market! Here are the numbers:

    Impressions 12
    Clicks 3

    That’s 25% CTR folks! This works ! Think for yourselves!

20. Comment by Chas — September 17, 2009 @ 6:11 am

    Most if not all myths spring from true events that may or may not be the most common experience for the general population.

    In this case, it’s likely that “most” people do a poor job with getting the double opt-in right. So I have heard them rant that they loose 3/4 of the prospects if they use a “double” list. So for lazy slackers, a single opt in is the best option.

21. Comment by Daniel Levis — September 17, 2009 @ 8:26 am

    Look, I’m just sharing some results with you. I don’t have a long term, high volume test to share with you. As the funnel whittles down the numbers become less statistically significant.

    That said, I really don’t believe the sales figure is really that central to the argument anyway. These lists saw the same pitch. Do you really believe that whether somebody opted in double or single makes a difference to whether they buy or not a year later?

    In my mind, the open rate and click through rate are worth looking at. There is a 40 some odd percent spread. And this is after taking into account the loss of 27% of the opt-in leads. Again not statistically full proof, but it does support the conclusion that double opt-in, at least in this specific situation, isn’t likely to kill my results.

    Add the “safety factor” of using double opt-in (less complaints) and this is enough proof for me.

22. Comment by Chuck — September 17, 2009 @ 8:40 am

    Daniel didn’t HAVE to share anything. Let’s have some gratitude, folks.

    Chuck

23. Comment by Will — September 17, 2009 @ 8:50 am

    This post has only reconfirmed ONE thing for me. Why most people never make it in Internet Marketing.

    I can’t believe how many of you still EXPECT your hands to held every step of the way and cry like little babies when all the hard work isn’t done for you.

    Daniel has provided a great post here with very solid content that has got us all thinking about the pro’s and con’s of single vs double optin - something most of us would not be considering had we not read this post.

    Be grateful that Daniel took the time out of his day to initiate the conversation on this topic and provide a small insight into his own testing and outcomes.

    Don’t forget, Daniel owes you all NOTHING.

    To those of you who are selfishly complaining about the lack of stats he has shared in this post, you may want to re-read the post, especially the part where Daniel stresses that as with any variable like this, you need to conduct your own tests in your own market to find out what works best.

    Any Internet Marketer worth his salt knows that relying on other people’s testing to form your own conclusions is an amateur way of playing the game and will never yield the best results.

    Grow up people. Please.

24. Comment by Tony Seymour — September 17, 2009 @ 10:12 am

    The problem with these numbers are NOT that they are not significant to the reader’s business.
    (no number would be, because things are different in every industry, and you should always test, yadda yadda)

    The problem here is that this result is not even relevant in Daniel’s business. You can’t base your whole business model on a single test on 29 clicks and one sale !
    I’m very surprised that you would suggest to your readers that your conclusion comes from such a small scale test.

    Do you imagine running a direct mail split test with just 29 recipients and declaring the copy with ONE single sale the new control ?

    Tony

    P.S : Thanks for the FIRST part of the article though, because it prompted me to think differently, and get back to single optin. And I know I should test… which I will.

25. Pingback by MLM-with-Ease.com » Blog Archive » Do Confirmed Opt-in’s Kill Your Profits? - Training for network marketers and other home business owners. — September 17, 2009 @ 10:21 am

    [...] Dan Levis reported a further experiment where he looked at conversions (people who actually bought something) after sending out an offer to those who remained subscribed after a year.  The table below shows the results. Double vs. Single Opt-in Profitability [...]

26. Comment by Ken Ca|houn — September 17, 2009 @ 10:45 am

    Thanks very much for the insightful test results, that’s very useful to learn about. Also I liked your comments on exactly what to put on the double opt in page, I’ll test those changes myself, especially instruction re consequence of not opting in, eg “I can’t send you (freebie)”, etc.

    Also great points John above re making sure to get opt ins the right way, and other comments from folks above…some smart people here!

    to profits,

    ken

27. Comment by Raymond Merz — September 17, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    Maybe Daniel just didn’t put a fine enough point on it.

    I’m seeing plenty of statistically significant actions here.

    Double opt-in started with 27% less (600ish).

    With this smaller team, it got:

    58 more opens
    —
    14 more clicks
    —
    1 more sale

    Each of these are actions. While we can only spend dollars and not clicks, it is important not to overlook the obvious data. If you would like to use the 40 action rule, there was more than the 40 actions in 3/6 areas.

    Each separate action proves the mettle of that particular marketing element in that particular circumstance. Therefore, each number must be looked at collectively AND separately. Like a profit and loss statement, the number on the bottom is a result of the numbers above it. (You will not have 100 sales and 7 clicks.)

    In this case, one list beat down the other list when it came to opens and clicks. Your test HAS proven (as well as one test can prove anything) that your double opt-in list opens better and clicks better than your single opt-in.

    Yes, you need to test more for sales info. But there is usable, and therefore valuable, data here that most have poo-pooed because of the one sale. You can’t ignore a double open rate!

    Further, because sales flow from opens and clicks and each open and click is a sale in and of itself, you make make an education inference that your sales will be higher with the double opt-in.

    Conclusion: If you are a company of some size with the resources to test completely, do so to ensure the sales pan out. However, if you’re a fellow in the garage with $1500, FORGET TESTING MORE. Crank out as much double opt-in as you can, until someone else proves you wrong. Go test a headline or offer.

    These are encouraging results from a “forgotten” list.

28. Pingback by Single vs. Double Opt In – Test Results from Daniel Levis » White Hat Crew — September 17, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    [...] a guest post on Clayton Makepeace’s blog yesterday, Daniel Levis revealed the results of a split test between single and double opt in mailing lists. The results were [...]

29. Comment by Connie — September 17, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

    >something most of us would not be considering had we not read this post.

    Sorry but this is something I have considered, a lot, long before this post. All my lists are single opt-in because I’ve never drank the Aweber kool-aid.

    >Don’t forget, Daniel owes you all NOTHING.

    When you email thousands of people and promise them something, yes, you do owe them something. And you kind of owe it to your reputation to deliver it, too. That’s kind of branding and list management 101.

    Mind you, the post has value. The opening rates etc are interesting. But because it is based on one mailing, it is inconclusive, and therefore nearly worthless, except, indeed, for those “grown-ups” who have never considered single opt-in before.

    I still have no idea why we can’t get a more relevant overall picture, when it has been stated the list was tested for a year.

30. Comment by Daniel Levis — September 17, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

    Hi Guys, OK I give. I will send some more mail to these segmented lists and report back in a month or two. Would that make you happy?

31. Comment by Will — September 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

    Daniel,

    I don’t see how that is really going to help anyone. Yes, it will prove which has worked best for you but as explained above, this stuff HAS to be tested on a case to case basis - it’s the only way to do it. That is why I cannot understand why people are harping on so much about your results - or lack there of. It’s fairly irrelevant to their own situations.

    Connie,

    “Sorry but this is something I have considered, a lot, long before this post.”

    Well then I would expect an Internet Marketer of your ‘calibre’ to have already tested this in your own market and come up with what works best for you - so Daniel’s results, although interesting, should be of little significance to you - because you considered this SO LONG ago.

    And be very careful if all of your optin lists are single optin. As one of the commenters mentioned above if the law decides to change at anytime, and it will eventually, any list where you don’t have proof of the subscribers confirming to be on your list, will be virtually worthless.

    Oh, one more thing. Daniel HAS delivered exactly what he is here to deliver. VALUE. If you guys don’t like what Daniel delivers then use the unsubscribe button because I will tell you right now, there are way more people here who appreciate everything these guys do for us than the small bunch of ungrateful complainers.

32. Comment by Connie — September 18, 2009 @ 4:51 am

    @Daniel - yes, that would be awesome. Thank you. I hope you’ll follow through.

    @Will:

    >any list where you don’t have proof of the subscribers confirming to be on your list, will be virtually worthless.

    That’s absurd. The law doesn’t change in a snap. If it does change, we’ll know about it in advance and have all the time in the world to send an email (or several) to our lists a

    Oh, one more thing. Daniel HAS delivered exactly what he is here to deliver. VALUE. If you guys don’t like what Daniel delivers then use the unsubscribe button because I will tell you right now, there are way more people here who appreciate everything these guys do for us than the small bunch of ungrateful complainers.

33. Comment by Connie — September 18, 2009 @ 4:55 am

    @Daniel - yes, that would be awesome. Thank you. I hope you’ll follow through.

    @Will:

    >any list where you don’t have proof of the subscribers confirming to be on your list, will be virtually worthless.

    No offense but that’s a ridiculous argument. The law doesn’t change in a snap. If it does change, we’ll know about it in advance and have all the time in the world to send an email (or several) to our lists and get them to reconfirm, thus transforming the list into a double opt-in list. Wow, that was tough. Of course we will lose a good chunk of the list, but we would have lost them 2 years ago if we had done double opt-in from the start.

    >way more people here who appreciate everything these guys do for us than the small bunch of ungrateful complainers.

    The world isn’t so black and white. I appreciate everything they do, I can still complain when they do the odd bad move that under-delivers.

34. Comment by Michael — September 18, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

    Whether you use single or double optin has little or no bearing on whether you will/will not make sales. Opt-ins are about getting people to become subscribers to your newsletter - to join your mailing list(s).

    Sales are generated (or not!) as a result of your successfully promoting a product or service to your subscribers. Sales, as such, are never dependant on whether or not you used a single or double opt-in.

    From the results given in the article above, your test has proven the ‘opens’, ‘clicks’ and ‘conversions’ for the double opt-in list(s) are better than your single opt-ins.

    These results support our own experiences regarding the sales potential for those who have joined our lists. More sales (quantity and value) come from our double opt-in subscribers than from our single opt-ins.

    We believe this is because those who take the time to complete the double opt-in are serious about their business. They really want to receive the information and determine if it can help them do better. Thus, they are prepared to take the extra step and, to spend money!

    In summation: it’s not about the number of subscribers you generate, it’s about the number of the sales you generate from the subscribers you have.

35. Comment by Simon — September 19, 2009 @ 8:14 am

    Some interesting questions -

    Could a prospect’s responsiveness actually be INFLUENCED by the way in which they subscribed to your list? ie does the double opt-in process MAKE a prospect more responsive or merely filter out the less responsive prospects?

    If the latter, then sending an offer to a single opt-in list should not have any effect on the absolute number of sales, only the conversion rate as a proportion of sales vs the list size.

    For example you use a double opt in method to build a list of 100. You mail the list and 5 people end up converting to sales.

    Lets now go back in time and change to single opt-in. Our list is now 150.

    From our trip through time and previous mailing, we know that our list contains AT LEAST 5 people that will convert on this offer.

    Keep everything else constant ie the offer, time of mailing etc. then the fact that those 5 people subscribed using different methods is irrelevant - we still expect them to hit the BUY NOW button when they read it.

    The only thing that can be different then is the deliverabilty of our mailing based on the subscription process giving one method a higher probability of mailings reaching our prospects’ inbox. (in a timely manner or at all).

    Daniel’s theory appears to me the best - that those on the double opt-in, rather than being more responsive (in absolute terms) were just simply more likely to receive the mail than those on single opt-in!

    Clearly though at the very least, double opt-in will filter out less responsive prospects and, possibly, increase deliverability.

36. Comment by Alex K — September 22, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    What I find interesting is the amount of subscribers that I get to my lists which aren’t confirming their email. I think a Double opt-in definitely weeds out a lot of people. But on the other hand, the double opt-in people tend to be a lot more responsive to my emails, at least in my experience

37. Comment by Chuck Bartok — September 23, 2009 @ 8:43 am

    Thank you for your time and energy.
    I am not as detailed and test oriented as your showed in your “experiment”

    I only Know this..
    After I went to exclusive Double Opt-in the average sale increased, the relationship were stronger and REPEAT business soared.

    For the past 50 years in business we have always
    developed Quality relationships with quality, satisfied customers.

    The internet has provided a nice flow, and I believe Double Opt-in is one reason our Advertising provides such a nice ROI

38. Comment by Franck Silvestre — September 29, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    Very interesting. Your results, and all the good comments.

    I think Daniel started a good conversation here, and although I’m a ‘tough’ guy, I found some very ‘hard’ comments above, but anyway.

    Thanks Daniel for this case study. It’s true that the single sale and single mailing isn’t enough, but it was a great test. You couldn’t control the number of sales.

    I’m testing this myself, and I use single optin for ad swaps. It’s different than cold traffic.

    All the best,
    Franck
    The Body Guard Marketer.

39. Comment by Connie — October 27, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

    Sooo…where is the follow-up, Daniel?

40. Pingback by Double Opt In vs. Single Opt In: Which is Better for Building Your List? « QuestionPro Blog — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 am

    [...] take my word for it. Recently Daniel Levis in “The Total Package”  put single opt in versus double opt in to the test. Everyone seems to push the confirmation [...]

41. Comment by Tim Watson — January 28, 2010 @ 3:55 am

    This is an terrific experiment. There is very little structured testing around single and double-optin.

    I’ve run the clicks and conversion figures through statitical analysis. The 43 vs. 29 clicks is statistically valid, the one sale versus zero is not.

    I don’t believe deliverability is a likely cause of the better double-optin numbers. The difference in reputation between the servers is likely to be 10% to 20%. This is less than the difference in results.

    A lot more information about the servers would be needed to qualify whether this is the cause or not for sure. It could also be tested as a theory. Our use a single dedicated high quality IP address for just these emails. At these volumes deliverability would not be an issue (I work for an ESP delivering billions of emails).

    I would explain the difference due to customer engagement - double-optin are simply more qualified customers. They had to jump a high bar.

    Thanks for sharing this information.