Outreach is at the heart of any strategy geared towards getting links, building buzz, or increasing brand awareness. Still, despite the fact that almost every company that cares about promoting their site or content sends outreach, there are tons of questions. Some of the ones we hear most often are:

• What level of response rates should we expect? How much variation should we expect from campaign to campaign?
• Do we need to personalize our outreach in order to get results? If so, how do we do this and still conduct outreach at a scale that moves the needle for the business?
• What can we do to improve our response rates?

To provide some answers to these questions, we’ve analyzed campaigns across our customer base to show what the baseline response rates look like and to determine whether (and how) certain organizations are able to consistently outperform the industry.

Spoiler alert: they are. And we’re going to show you the tactics that let them do it.

Key Takeaways

• The top 5% of groups conducting outreach are able to consistently get 40% or higher reply rates across their campaigns. This is dramatically higher than the median reply rate for companies we researched (12%). The primary differentiators for top performing accounts are the amount of time spent prospecting for highly relevant contacts and customizing messages to make them personalized and contextually relevant.
• Groups that send outreach using only templates with merge fields receive an average reply rate of 16%. Reply rates are decreased by -1.3% if a group personalizes in an irrelevant or cursory way, and boosted by an average of +10.7% for groups that contextualize those emails with relevant personalization. Groups that reference past promotion get a further boost of +2.3%.

Methodology

We aggregated outreach data from over 12,000 campaigns across 2,000 active BuzzStream accounts and analyzed it to understand reply rates by campaign. We then averaged the reply rates for all campaigns in a given account that have been completed over the past year. After that, we analyzed over 30,000 anonymized and coded individual emails to understand the impact of different approaches to outreach and personalization.

Finally, we followed up with top performing accounts (ie, those in the upper 5th percentile of campaign reply rate) to understand commonalities in their specific processes.

Overall Reply Rate Trends

The most striking aspect of the data we analyzed is the sheer range of the distribution. Although the median reply rate hovers around 12%, there is a large chunk of our customer  base that dramatically outperforms, with the upper 5th percentile averaging a staggering 40% reply rate across their campaigns.

Similarly, there are accounts that clearly do not perform well, with a comparatively paltry 3% reply rate across the campaigns we analyzed.

To quickly summarize the data:

• Roughly 50% of BuzzStream accounts regularly receive a reply rate of over 12% for their email campaigns
• The upper 25% of accounts regularly receive a 20% or higher reply rate
• The bottom 25% of accounts receive under a 7% reply rate
• The best performers (top 5%) receive reply rates of over 40%
• The worst performers (bottom 5%) receive under 3% reply rate

I should point out that this data covers the breadth of BuzzStream customers, which includes agencies and independent companies across a wide range of industries.

To discover the common success factors of top performing accounts, as well as elements that lead to underperforming campaigns, we examined the actual messages that were being sent to contacts across 12,000 campaigns.

What’s the Impact of Personalization on Reply Rates?

Of the campaigns we examined, the overwhelming majority (slightly over 95%) sent their initial outreach using a template with merge fields. When reviewing emails that were sent using only a template with merge fields, and no additional personalization, we saw a baseline reply rate of 16%.

Once we knew the average base reply rate for people who did not personalize, we could assess the impact of different personalization strategies. Although personalization can be pretty diverse in its application, most of the messages we reviewed fit pretty snugly into three approaches:

1. Fake personalization
2. Contextual relevance
3. Reference to past promotion

Fake Personalization

Fake personalization is named as such because it isn’t really personalization at all. Rather, it is a generic reference to an article or some other piece of information meant merely to signal that the outreach professional has some knowledge of the contact they are reaching out to, without actually having any context about that individual.

A common example of this type of outreach is any email that begins with some variation of:

“Hey FNAME, I just saw your article at XYZ.com. Great post! I’ve written something your audience would like…”

Unfortunately for those groups that utilize this process they’d be better served by not personalizing at all. Based on the data, fake personalization actually generates a -1.3% impact on reply rates compared to the base case of people only using templates with merge fields.

Contextual Relevance

Contextually relevant personalization shows clearly that the person sending outreach has a good understanding of the author by specifically referencing not just their article or info, but tying it directly into the ask. This type of personalization depends on a tight prospecting process as well as a good understanding of outreach audience.

This type of personalization, in stark contrast to fake personalization, offers significant improvements to the base case with an average reply rate improvement of +10.7%.

Refer to Past Promotion

References to past promotion are precisely what they sound like. This type of personalization requires a well-updated contact database that teams can reference in order to know which of the contacts in their campaigns have shared or linked in the past. If you’ve had a good working relationship in the past, that contact is much more likely to promote again.

However, when analyzing this type of personalization things get a little murky because it is almost always completed in concert with contextually relevant outreach. So, in order to isolate the average improvement of references to past promotion we analyzed those instances and compared them to those instances of contextual relevance without said references. When doing so, we found an average improvement of +2.3% on reply rate.

Campaign Results by Outreach Sender Type

When aggregating the types of outreach people are doing, there are 3 profiles that recur most often:

• Volume Senders – This group consists primarily of  link builders who are primarily relying on links from specific page types to their content/site. They are mostly doing things like resource page outreach and link reclamation (unlinked mention) campaigns.
• SEO Content Marketers – This type of outreach team blurs the line between traditional SEO and PR, using a range of tactics including blogger outreach, infographic placement, broken link building.
• Pure Digital PRs – These accounts focus their outreach almost exclusively on high authority media sites by targeting journalists and high level influencers with exclusive and/or newsworthy content that aligns with their niche.

Although these approaches are nearly all aimed towards getting links to sites or content, the approaches differ significantly. To understand those, we reviewed the average list size, reply rate, average number of replies, and average Domain Authority of sites that replied.

These strategies highlight significantly different campaign logistics, but an interesting (and slightly unexpected) element in the data was that Volume Senders and Digital PRs seem to get the same reply rate. It seemed like there was more to this story than was being told in the reply rate alone, so we turned to Ahrefs with a representative subset of these campaigns in order to understand the impact of these approaches on downstream placement rates.

This analysis showed that although replies might be similar for two outreach types, actual placement rates differ significantly.

First, to clarify what we mean by “outreach” vs. “organic” links. Outreach placements are simply links that were earned as a direct result of outreach itself, whereas organic placements were earned as a result of people subsequently linking as a result of the impact of content or pages created by the contacts initially reached out to.

These results can be summed up as follows for each group:

• Volume Senders – Nearly all value of the outreach in terms of link placements is derived from the initial outreach itself. Due to the general lower authority of the sites and lack of editorial value for things like resource pages in general, there are fewer organic placements with this approach.
• SEO Content Marketers – A mixed bag, but shows that still the majority of value is derived from the initial outreach campaign. Subsequent organic links do happen, but it is not the backbone of the strategy because the range of authority and search value of those sites is scattered.
• Digital PR – Here, placement rates are very low in the initial outreach campaign, averaging one or two placements. However, because those sites are generally VERY high authority and the linking articles are often newsworthy based on current trends, subsequent organic links make up for the low initial placements.

Just to summarize the end impact of these different campaign approaches, here is the blended average placements and DAs for the different approaches:

I should note that these results do not point to a superior outreach sending type. Although it appears that the better long term strategy is a pure Digital PR play, the reality is that each of these approaches have their place in an SEO strategy, and must be tied to the specific needs of the organization.

In a follow up piece I’ll explore more specifics around which of these processes to use and when to use them, but to just quickly review some of the pros and cons:

• Volume Senders – This process offers the fastest results and the most clear path to links. Further, it is the most consistent process because there is usual a very clear reason for the link request. That said, in general the authority of those sites is lower and subsequent links don’t generally happen.
• SEO Content Marketers – A blended approach that gets very solid authority links and builds relationships with niche influencers in a space. Done correctly, this approach will align closely with search intent and can also be used to establish an up and coming site as an authority in a vertical. However, it will be more difficult to earn links with this approach than in a volume sending campaign, and usually those links are not received from the most  authoritative sites.
• Digital PR – This approach is all about targeted outreach to very high authority sites and is great for established brands or agencies that can offer proprietary data or exclusives to publications. These links get major buzz and, as we’ve seen, can lead to tons of follow on links themselves. However, this type of outreach can be difficult for brands or agencies that don’t already have a solid reputation, and often those publications will only be interested in exclusives. One other downside to this approach is that the primary benefit comes from increasing the authority of a site. However, it is not likely to result in a significant increase in page authority and may not get as much direct traffic value as the other approaches.

Trends of Top Performers

Given that there are teams that consistently get strong reply rates, we wanted to reach out to a few representative groups across the range of our customer base in the top 5% to understand the commonalities in their process. The goal here was to understand those elements not dependent on specific niche, industry, or team size.

Ultimately, the groups we talked to shared most of the following traits:

1. Process Oriented

These outreach teams have a well defined process and they stick with it. This does not necessarily mean that they structure their outreach rigidly, however. It means that they ensure that they find specific information about a contact, leverage this information in their emails, and follow up on replies and unread messages in an orderly manner. Many of these teams have scripted their processes so they can easily share them and onboard new team members as they grow.

2. Significant Time Spent in Contact Prospecting

Probably the most common and significant differentiator of top performers. These groups spend the majority of their time prospecting, qualifying, and researching prospects to ensure they were going to be interested in their outreach.

3. Customized Email Messaging to Each Contact

Simple to grasp, but perceived as difficult to execute, this was another common differentiator of top performers. In reality, the difficulty of customized messaging (meaning templates that are customized, not totally unique emails to each contact) is tied closely to time spent prospecting. The more time spent in the prospecting and segmentation phase, the easier it is to quickly personalize each message with relevant content.

4. Leveraging Existing Relationships

Groups that have an established outreach program and a well-maintained contact database regularly leverage their relationships for future progress in two ways. First, as previously discussed, they will reference their relationships in their outreach to boost replies. Second, they will use their database as a source to build their lists for subsequent similar campaigns, building on the success of their campaigns and making results more beneficial and predictable over time.

The post BuzzStream Data: The Outperforming Outreach Tactics We Learned From Analyzing 12,000 Campaigns appeared first on BuzzStream.

Some of these stats may be sobering, but fortunately nearly one-third of publishers often or always read pitches. My team at Fractl still manages to maintain an impressive response and placement rate for our client work, but we know there’s always room for improvement so we wanted to go straight to the source to learn how to improve our outreach efforts.

We surveyed 1,300 writers, editors, contributors, and reporters at top-tier publications to learn how to improve the value of pitch. Luckily we found there are a few steps we can take in the field of PR and communications to mitigate rejections and encourage long-lasting relationships with publishers and influencers.

The Art of Outreach Begins With the Right Target

The most time-consuming aspect of outreach comes way before you ever start drafting your email, but if you don’t put in the extra effort here, you set yourself up for failure (and potentially becoming blacklisted by publishers for wasting their time.)

According the study, by far one of the biggest pet peeves of the media and journalists is a lack of research and familiarity with the publication, the writer, and their audience. Nearly 80% of publishers surveyed revealed the most likely reason a pitch is declined is irrelevance to their beat, meaning the research stage of pitching must be taken seriously if you’re hoping for a positive reply.

There are a lot of questions you need to answer throughout the outreach process, almost all of them are during the research phase. Based on our trial and errors and rooted deeply in the findings of the survey, here’s a three-step guide to perfecting the art of outreach.

Step 1: Craft the Ideal Audience Persona

Develop an audience persona that characterizes your ideal client and more importantly, where they go online for news, entertainment, and answers to their problems. Evaluate the demographics, goals, and challenges of your current and potential customers and analyze your social community to help with this exercise.

Tip: Collaborate with your sales team to get a better idea about who they consider their ideal consumer or client, and if possible, where the most qualified leads come from in terms of referral traffic.

Step 2: Vet the Best-Fit Publications and Writers

There’s a plethora of tools out there to help you with list building, so don’t think you’re limited to a simple Google search. Once you’re familiar with the online habits of your ideal audience and compile a list of those publications, you’ll need to take into consider further criteria to ensure they’re the best-fit for your pitch.

First and foremost, determine if they even publish third-party content, usually included in their editorial guidelines or about page. Next you’ll want to ensure they post content and subject matter similar to what you’re hoping to pitch. For example, if they’ve never published an infographic, they probably won’t be too keen on the idea of covering yours.

After narrowing down your list, explore the editorial contacts of each publication to find the writer or editor whose beat matches your subject matter and vertical. This means tracking down their online footprint including their current publication, past work, and public social channels like Twitter. Check to see how frequently they post, their articles’ social engagement, and the potential authority of the contact at a publication. Editors typically pull rank over reporters, and staff writers have more influence on editorial decisions than contributors. Make a note of why exactly you chose this contact, it will help you prove your relevancy when it comes time to actually draft up your email.

Tip: Take a look at what publications and writers are covering similar third-party studies by competitors or partners in your industry, and consider if your content would be a match.

Step 3: Track Down the Right Influencers

Beyond publications, your ideal audience persona should also include the influencers they choose to follow. Nearly 75% of marketers consider finding the right influences the most challenging aspect of an influencer strategy, but it’s possible they’re searching in all the wrong places.

Cue the majority illusion. Influencers with huge social followings don’t necessarily see high levels of engagement, rather, influence depends more heavily on having the right connections. Clearly define your goals to help build your influencer strategy and determine who would be the best fit to help. Influencers can range from A-list celebrities to niche experts to brand evangelists, and all can somehow contribute value to your influencer strategy.

The influencer outreach equation begins with searching related hashtags, brands, and posts to find social amplifiers is a great place to start, then searching for the influencers those influencers interact with will further propel reaching the right networks. Again, a plethora of tools and resources exist of influencer list building. BuzzStream Discovery helps you uncover the full extent of an influencer’s online presence is also extremely helpful in vetting influencers.

Like publishers, you’ll want to make sure they are interested in brand partnerships. Look for a press page, past sponsored content, social media and blog mentions, and product reviews for other brands to help spot influencers who are willing to collaborate and most importantly, willing to build long-term relationships.

Tip: Consider the potential of micro-influencers who have established an authoritative and trustworthy image to a small, loyal following that matches your audience persona.

Targeting is only half of the battle, but once you’ve compiled an ideal list of contacts the next phase of crafting the perfect subject line and pitch should come easier. Considering you’ve now become intimately familiar with not only the content you’re pitching, but the contact you’re pitching it to, you’re more likely to write a more meaningful personal connection and a better synopsis of why your content is of value to their audience.

The post A 3-Step Guide to Media and Influencer Outreach Targeting, Inspired by 1,300 Publishers appeared first on BuzzStream.

With a finite number of writers who cover the topics related whatever you may pitching, it often seems PR pros outnumber journalists. It’s difficult to break through the noise. For all anyone can see, you’re just text on a screen. So we’re left with the Million Dollar Question: How do I get a response to my pitch?

Fractl’s media relations team uses BuzzStream as an outreach relationship management tool, and we’ve sent a whopping 26,988 emails through the platform between October 2014 and May 2016. We realized we could learn a lot from all of these emails, so we went back and combed through each pitch to gain better insights into what makes an email pitch successful. Focusing mainly on subject lines and personal introductions, we’ve unlocked the secrets to crafting a successful pitch.

What’s in a great subject line?

There’s little more important than a subject line when it comes to a pitch. Nearly two-thirds of publishers determine whether or not to open an email solely based on the subject line. Like your best joke on Twitter, you have to make the words you choose for that limited space really count, or your goal could get lost.

Taking a look at our top 15 most common words in successful pitches, here are a few things to keep in mind as one crafts a subject line:

1. Choose words that provide geographical ego-bait

Our research shows that U.K. writers are especially willing to open emails that reference their home country, but this takeaway can easily be applied no matter where an editor is located.

Tip: Is the journalist you’re pitching based in the Big Apple? Try pulling a statistic from your study that’s directly related to New York. Adding location-specific data to your subject line is an easy way to show you did your homework on the journalist as well as immediately pique their interest.

2. Incite laughter

“Size” was our second most successful word used in subject lines, and a deeper dive found that its use was almost always as an innuendo. A majority of journalists are open to humorous pitches, but always use your best judgement.

Tip: A writer’s Twitter is a great way to gauge how big their funny bone is.

3. Highlight the good stuff

Many journalists receive hundreds of pitches a day, so it’s no surprise that using words that immediately highlighted key takeaways were so successful. “Know,” “show,” and “changed,” all serve this purpose, and they also all made it on our list of the most effective words.

Tip: Before you start pitching, make a quick, bulleted list of what you find most surprising or interesting about the project. Try shrinking each aspect down to 10 words or less, and you have a handy list of potential subject lines ready to go.

4. Make it verticalized

Words like “traveler,” “body,” and “marketing” were successful because they were used in a way that related to the prospect’s beat. This is another case where it’s easy to show you did some research and aren’t sending out the same pitch to any valid email address you can find.

Tip: Want to go one step further? See if you can relate your content’s subject line to a story they recently published. Not only are you showing that you know what they write about, but that you actually read their writing, too!

So a journalist opened your email. Now what?

Mastering the art of getting an email opened is only half the battle; the other part is getting a journalist to actually respond to you. An inbox can be full of templated pitches, so any effort you can make to personalize your email is key in earning a reply. A great way to do this is in your introduction since it can play a big part in whether or not a journalist chooses to read the rest of your email – and ultimately to write about your content.

Like we did earlier with subject lines, let’s take a look at the most commonly used words in the introductions of successful pitches:

1. C’mon get happy

By and large, the words used in our most successful pitches lean towards the positive. “Happy,” “hope,” “loved,” and “great,” all elicit upbeat feelings, as well as a higher than average response rate. Perhaps in a world overwhelmed with negativity in the media, a lighthearted pitch introduction is the perfect contrast.

2. The human experience

Another trend among these keywords is that they show whether or not you’ve been paying attention to their writing. “Hear,” “article,” “list,” and “piece,” among many others, are all used to reference something the journalist wrote recently.

Tip: Whether it’s an article, a recent tweet, an Instagram post, or even something on their personal blog, there is no shortage of ways to connect with a journalist – just be sure to do so sincerely and go beyond the surface. For example, if you’re pitching a sports writer, don’t just talk about last night’s game. Millions of people also caught the game last night, so you’re not standing out. The word “game” is also the least successful word from our study. Instead, try scoping out their social media for photos of pets or a recent concert or conference they have have attended. Bringing that up in the pitch will make you stand out from the tons of sports content and conversation they’re used to.

Key Takeaway

Overwhelmingly, the common denominator in all of our successful subject lines and personal connections is that we acknowledge the humanity in these interactions. Prove that you’re not a robot and that journalists aren’t simply machines pumping out stories. If you always keep this principle in mind, you’re more likely to build some strong writer relationships that benefit both parties – and what more could a PR professional want?

The post What 26,000 Pitches Can Teach You About Effective Subject Lines and Intros appeared first on BuzzStream.

BuzzStream and Fractl conducted a survey of over 1,000 consumers to better understand the emotional impact of sound and how it relates to content marketing. Survey respondents were asked to play five viral videos from the last couple of years and then pick which emotions were activated when the video was played. Each group was presented with a different viewing format. The first group had to watch the videos with sound, but without captions; the second group had to watch the videos without sound, but with captions; and the third group was only able to listen to the video’s sound and was not allowed to watch the video. Robert Plutchik’s comprehensive Wheel of Emotions was used to categorize emotions.

The impact of sound on content marketing

Sound is a strong trigger for emotion. It can have a significant impact on the listener, inspiring either positive or negative emotions, and has the power to completely change the sentiment of your content. In fact, 69 percent of respondents in the sound and no video group believed that sound had a significant impact on their emotional response. The goal of your content should be to leverage positive emotions to grab a person’s interest. Without the right sound, your content could be devoid of an emotional trigger, which impacts overall emotional responses.

Knowing that sound enables interspersed emotional triggers, marketers can leave their audience feeling a range of strong and weak emotions in a variety of ways. Applying sound to content can induce the type and level of emotion you want your audience to feel at certain points.

The emotions of sound

These eight emotions were the most prevalent in all five of the viral videos watched by our survey takers: interest, curiosity, uncertainty, admiration, acceptance, cheerfulness, amazement, and astonishment. Generally, these are positive, strong emotions that drive people to care about and share the content.

The only negative emotion we saw commonly evoked was revulsion, which fits into the disgust segment of Plutchik’s wheel. This emotion was strongly evoked when the audience was not able to view the video accompanying the sound in all five viral videos. However, when given the context of video, our survey takers did not feel negative emotions as strongly as they did the positive ones. In fact, in place of revulsion, they felt delight and serenity.
To better compare the emotions of sound in all five viral videos, we converted the results of our survey into heat maps (click on the titles below to view the corresponding video):

The Epic Split feat. Van Damme (Volvo Trucks)
Sound, No Video	Sound, No Captions	Captions, No Sound

Monty The Penguin (John Lewis)
Sound, No Video	Sound, No Captions	Captions, No Sound

Most Shocking Second a Day Video (Save The Children)
Sound, No Video	Sound, No Captions	Captions, No Sound

1 is 2 Many PSA (The White House)
Sound, No Video	Sound, No Captions	Captions, No Sound

First Moon Party (HelloFlo)
Sound, No Video	Sound, No Captions	Captions, No Sound

Sound is at the heart of every great video, and it’s a great way to trigger an emotional response—which is essential if you want your content to go viral. As a marketer, a well-executed video produces everything you want from your content—it entertains, it informs, and it inspires your audience to take action. Realizing the role sound plays in its success and tailoring it to perfectly complement your content will help elevate your next video.

The post Sound in Viral Videos: How It Significantly Impacts 69% of Consumers appeared first on BuzzStream.

1. Lifestyle, Entertainment and Technology writers take the brunt of your pitches 

In our study, we found Lifestyle, Entertainment and Technology writers account for 60% of the verticals getting pitched over 300x/day. Knowing that these verticals suffer the most news release fatigue, you should trim down your pitches to the preferred 100-200 word count. In comparison, there is significantly less competition in verticals such as Jobs, Animals, and Climate, each of which receive an average of 10 pitches/day.

2. Editors receive 68% of your pitches

PR professionals often debate about whether you should pitch editors, staff writers, or contributors; however, our research tells us that editors receive 68% of your pitches. If you want to stand out where there is less noise, try pitching staff writers with a highly targeted pitch based on that individual’s beat and previous coverage.

3. 75% of publishers prefer subject lines under 10 words

Keep your subject line as short and to the point as possible. 55% of respondents indicated that they prefer subject lines to be 6-10 words long, and the next highest requested length was 0-5 words. Anything longer and you’ll lose the attention of most editors, or you’ll risk getting your subject line cut off in an inbox.

4. 99% of publishers are against “clickbait” subject lines

More than 50% of respondents said your subject lines should be specific, descriptive, and tailored to their beat. Less than 20% want catchy, personalized, or humorous subject lines. Only 1% said subject lines should look like clickbait.

5. 70% of publishers don’t want to see CAPS, emojis, or exclamation points

Save your friendly and enthusiastic messages for when you text your friends. Publishers want you to keep your pitches professional, and avoid the phony friendliness.

6. 66% of publishers want you to indicate a standing relationship in your subject line 

If you have worked with a particular writer in the past, it can be advantageous to mention that in the email subject line. 66% of publishers indicated they would be at least somewhat more likely to open your email if you reference your past relationship in the subject line.

7. Highlight your key findings

80% of writers said they would like to see your content title, a key statistic from your study, or a clearly defined pitch in the subject. Content with raw data or original research is highly desirable, with more than 85% saying they would like to see that information in your pitch.

8. 85% want raw data with your pitch

In the past two years we’ve noticed a significant uptick in publishers rejecting campaigns if the sources are not authoritative, recent, and verified. This is likely the reason that 85% of publishers want your raw data with your pitch, so they can quickly verify your information. By providing the publisher with your raw data, you also allow them to cover your campaign under the angle they are most interested in featuring, rather than a pre-formatted graphic.

9. Less than 15% of publishers are “very open” to syndications

Having the right syndication strategy in place can make or break your campaign’s success, especially when you consider that only 15% of publishers are “very open” to syndications. However, it’s important to note that the majority of these responses came from the highest authority publishers, while the mid-to-low-tier publishers are more open to covering a campaign even if they’re not the first to write about it.

10. 87% of publishers don’t want you to exceed 1-2 follow up pitches

There are many reasons a person could have missed or forgotten to respond to your original pitch, but there are very few reasons why someone would miss more than two emails from you. This is why one follow up is the standard best practice, and any more than two is perceived as spam.

11. 53% of publishers have blacklisted at least one person this month due to a bad pitch

The stakes are high when someone blacklists your email, because you’re ultimately putting your entire team at risk for having your company’s domain blocked from future pitches. That said, it’s imperative that you stay in touch with the latest pitching best practices and outreach training resources to make sure your team is ahead of the curve.

Want to learn more about the collaborative study by BuzzStream and Fractl? Read our white paper to discover 21 tips for pitching publishers!

The post Research: How To Write Subject Lines that Drive Open Rates appeared first on BuzzStream.