Is it time to finally delist open rate as a success metric for email campaigns? While some marketers still see value in it, others are pointing to its inherent weaknesses and are proposing that we graduate to ‘better’ metrics like click-to-open-rate (CTOR).

Here are some real-world examples of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of email opens:

• The email is “opened” (launched), but images are blocked: not counted as an open
• The email is not opened (launched), but images are enabled and is read in the preview pane: counted as an open
• The text version of a multi-part message is read on a BlackBerry. The HTML version (with images blocked) is later opened in Gmail (or other email service/client). The email has been opened and read twice — but zero opens are recorded.
• A text version is opened and read but not clicked: not counted as an open
• A text version is opened and read, but the user clicks a link: not counted as an open with some email software. Others assign an open because the email was clicked on, which assumes an open.

I think you get my point. With marketers increasingly being held accountable for their marketing spends and actions, do they really want to base performance reports and marketing decisions on such a flawed and inconsistent metric?

If calls to kill open rate in 2004 never really swayed the industry to change their metric focus, I doubt similar efforts to come up with at a more relevant/updated metrics language such as the ones we see today would. Hey if email service providers themselves keep on pushing open rates in their promotional collaterals, smarter metric alternatives may never gain the traction/visibility it needs in the most important court of all, the boardroom.