---
title: Edition 62
---

Plus, in this edition: The primitive brain, 3 new email metrics and why review request emails FAIL. And so much more. ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­    ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏  ͏ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­  

| > View all past editions here If this email looks weird click here In this edition: →  The 4 types of email accessibility →  Why review request emails fail, and how to earn the review instead (scroll to blogs) → The three new email metrics for 2026 (scroll to inbox drop) → The primitive brain (scroll to end) HEY   I hope you're good! I know everyone is SO busy right now so I hope you're finding time for YOU.    I am feeling a little stuck right now - so please let me know what you thought about this newsletter!    Let's GO.... DELIVERABILITY HEALTH CHECK Find out your health score This quick deliverability check shows you where you stand, both in what you know and in what you're actually doing.   It won't scan your domain, and it can't tell you how many emails land in spam. But what it does show you is the gaps you can't currently see, so you know exactly what to do next.  Get my deliverability score → The 4 types of email accessibility And how it affects your deliverability One: technical accessibility The code layer, and the only one of the four that is close to binary. Can assistive technology parse this email at all, and does it come out in a sensible order when it does?   Includes: Semantic structure and real headings Layout tables and the presentation role Alt text that does a job Live text rather than images of text Language attributes Emojis  Two: sensory accessibility The eye layer. The email is technically parseable, and can a human eye comfortably process it?   Includes: Contrast Size, spacing and tap targets Colour must never be the only signal Motion and animation Dark mode Three: cognitive accessibility The brain layer, and the one almost nobody in email thinks about at all. The email is readable, and can it be understood without effort?   It affects people with dyslexia, ADHD, autism, anxiety, brain fog, long covid, the effects of medication and simple exhaustion. It also affects every single person reading you while doing two other things, which is most of your list most of the time. Four: situational accessibility Access needs are not only permanent. Microsoft's design work popularised a useful way of thinking about this: a permanent condition, a temporary condition and a situational constraint often produce the identical barrier. Somebody with one arm, somebody with a broken wrist, and somebody holding a baby all have one hand available, and your email is equally difficult for all three. READ: Email Accessiblity → From the Vault A blog a day keeps the spam filter away  ⌚ 4 min read: → How to get reviews without asking. Why review request emails fail, and how to earn the review instead ⌚ 6 min read: → Changing your email sending domain: what it does to your sender reputation, and how to do it safely ⌚ 8 min read: → Why category segmentation breaks, and what to build instead From the Queen’s Court Voiceover video verdicts  View the library 84 recorded video verdicts of real emails in the wild. Find an email verdict The Inbox Drop The three new email metrics for 2026 MarTech published a piece in March on three emerging metrics, disaffection rate, reply rate, trustworthiness, drawing on Validity's 2026 benchmark report.   The direction is right. Moving away from opens and clicks toward signals that reflect the actual health of the relationship is exactly the conversation we should be having. The formulas need a closer look. MarTech has an enormous readership and people will take this as gospel.   1. The Disaffection Index What they propose: unsubscribes + complaints + bounces, divided by clicks, × 100. One number for how fast you're burning through your audience.   Where I push back: → Bounces aren't disaffection. A hard bounce usually means someone left a job or their mailbox closed. They didn't decide anything about you. It's a data quality signal, not a relationship one.   → A complaint isn't an unsubscribe. One says I don't want these any more. The other says this was unwanted enough that I'm reporting you. Different severity, different response, shouldn't be averaged together.   → Clicks are the wrong denominator. Plenty of B2B and thought leadership programmes generate real commercial value with almost no direct clicks. This formula would make them look catastrophic.   Track instead: unsubscribe rate, complaint rate and bounce rate - separately, by segment, over time. Then set them against your meaningful action rate for the same period. The gap between explicit exit signals and genuine engagement signals tells you more than any combined formula.   2. Reply Rate What they propose: replies as the real engagement signal. Clicks can be accidental, opens are unreliable, but a reply requires intent. Microsoft's sender requirements now specifically mention having a valid reply-to.   Where I push back: when did you last reply to a marketing email?   Not customer service. A newsletter. A promotional send. Most people never do - not because they're disengaged, but because thirty years of one-directional email means the thought doesn't occur. Making it a primary KPI in consumer contexts means measuring tiny numbers and drawing big conclusions from them.   Also worth remembering: an out-of-office is a reply. So is please stop emailing me.   Track it if: you're B2B, you actively invite replies with a low-friction ask, and you have a system for handling what comes back. Expect one in fifty at best. The deeper point stands though - design emails to invite a response rather than demand a click. Even if few people reply, the posture changes the relationship. And the handful who do will tell you more than a thousand opens.   3. Trustworthiness What they propose: credibility + reliability + intimacy, divided by self-orientation.   Where I push back: that's not a metric. It's a framework for thinking about trust, dressed up as an equation.   None of those four are independently measurable. Credibility is subjective. Intimacy and self-orientation exist entirely in the subscriber's head, which you can't access from your ESP.   And trust isn't an email metric at all - it's a brand outcome that email contributes to. If your customer service is terrible, no newsletter is fixing that.   Track instead - trust is visible through behaviour: → Time from signup to first meaningful action → Time from lead to customer, email-active versus not → Longevity — still engaging two years in → Referral behaviour → Complaint rate rising, as the inverse signal   You can't measure trust directly. You can measure its effects, and the effects tell you what to do about it. READ: The three new metrics→ Quick win for you The primitive brain Great email copy doesn’t just communicate, it connects. And that connection happens in a part of the brain that predates rational thought. Humans have three layers of brain function: The neocortex handles logic and language   The limbic system processes emotion and memory   And the reptilian brain, the oldest part, governs survival instincts: fight, flight, fear, status, belonging. People make decisions in the reptilian and limbic brain first.   Logic comes second - usually to justify a decision that’s already been made emotionally.    Which means if your copy doesn’t connect emotionally, the logical argument doesn’t even get heard.   What humans are hardwired to respond to: Fear of loss - more powerful than the desire for equivalent gain The need for status, recognition, and belonging The desire for certainty and safety Curiosity — the brain is compelled to close open loops Social proof — we look to others to know what’s safe The avoidance of pain, embarrassment, or regret The pursuit of more: more money, more time, more confidence Email Copy & Psychology guide → 2027 open for business  Interested in working together? Bring me on to help you with your email function.   I run workshops, bespoke training, consultancy and 1-1's on everything email and deliverability.  Get in touch to explore Measure fewer things and measure them properly.   Until next time...   Beth ✌️ I have ADHD (IFYKYK) so please excuse any typos and spelling errors in this email. What did you think about this email? Know someone who needs this in their inbox? Send them here. Astral Digital, 85 Great Portland Street, First Floor, London, Central London, W1W 7LT  Unsubscribe from RE:markable here |
| --- |