When it comes to web sites, everyone with a lick of sense seems to be adamant about hosting your own (or paying for the hosting and domains), not using free ones, even those commercially friendly due to they could be deleted anytime as they are relying on 3rd parties. (I agree whole heartedly)
Yet when it comes to a list, a resource that has the potential to bring in multitudes of income beyond what a web site is 'usually' capable of, it is usually outsourced to 3rd parties (though paid).
There are several scripts that can almost duplicate what an email marketing service does, but people recommend 3rd party sites all the time for an income producing resource much larger that almost any other; unless you get lucky with something; or so I hear here all the time, instead of self hosting their list. (Even those with dedicated servers and VPSs!)
I am not sure I understand outsourcing lists and yet being adamant on not using commercially friendly free hosts and domains. In my experience receiving emails, the most common service ends up in my in box (white-list) only 75% of the time and the most expensive option (I know of) only 50% of the time.
The in-box delivery seem (at least for windows live) to have more to do with title and content than sender or service. I understand the risks involved in using your own IP, but if you wouldn't get in trouble with a 3rd party, you shouldn't with your own either. (I assume).Also both services give me the option to 'label them as spam' where as most do not even give me that option.
The reason given to me over the phone for a raise in price for more contacts was that the services had to spend more money in order to keep their servers out of the black lists and the emails into the in-box. The best deliver-ability of all email I get, comes from a service that stays one price between 1 and 1 million contacts.So they don't spend whatever money some of the others claim is necessary (and still have, for me, 100% in-box deliver-ability.
Is it possible blacklist owners extort email services? Though do not ever follow through whether or not they are paid? (in other words, bluff). Or do some email services actually spend more resources to check out-going mail and therefore require more employees? (Given the email I receive, that appears to be a waste of time & money).
This especially comes to my mind since at least one large common service had issues this year twice. Once due to outside influences and one due to services they used. (If I understand their explanations correctly.) Some people I know have customers still being spammed because of an incident 6 months ago.
Call me a dummy, but I do not quite get why one would trust a valuable resource to a third party (paid or unpaid. The agreement always limits liability to the amount the service costs), when they would never do so with lesser resources if they could avoid to. (I understand that hosting is usually third party, and email services are paid, so I can save you that; but when it is not necessary to outsource lists anymore due to strides in scripting, and a $150 script can match everything a third party does, why do IMers still outsource that service? Just seems risky to me (well, not ME,but to someone with 10-1,000K lists),
Even though until recently, it was probably as common as dying in a plane crash or being hit by lightning, as having any problems with 3rd party email companies. I do read threads where people 'seem' to take exception to some of the TOSs of some of the email marketing services. So why use them and not your own script?
Dumb question perhaps, but an interesting one (at least to me) none-the-less, Due to canned spam act,is a PITA to move, (except to your own database), thought I'd see what the consensus was.