

Why you should ALWAYS CC someone - dsirijus

I ran a little statistics experiment over my Gmail inbox and here are the results:<p>Mails that I haven't gotten replies to and mails I did have, are in ratio ~1/13.
In those mails not replied to, mails WITH someone in Cc and mails WITHOUT anyone in Cc are in ratio of ~2/11.<p>Now, this sounded all obvious - the more recipients you address your e-mail, the higher are the chances you will get a reply, right? Right, but not quite. :)<p>For the last 2 months, I've created a imaginary CEO assistant e-mail account named Alex. I've Cc-ed Alex to all my mails and Alex has not directed any mails to anyone, nor received any as To recepient. Select few contacts were exempt from the experiment, but that's taken into statistical account. So, Alex has basically been completely non-interactive in all this, besides being in Cc.<p>After two months, mails that I haven't gotten replies to and mails I did have, are now in ratio ~1/22.<p>I have my own explanation of the phenomena, but I'd like to hear yours.<p>:{-
======
philbarr
Perhaps, over the last two months you've been running the experiment, you've
been thinking about actually wanting a response and have automatically been
constructing better emails that people feel they can reply to. Unlike the
"brain-dump" ones I sometimes get that just don't deserve a response.

To be perfectly honest, if there's more than one person on the email, I'm more
likely to hope it's not my problem...

~~~
adityar
isn't there a name for that? something like diffusion of responsibility. the
same reason we don't help one person in trouble when there's more than one
potential helper...

~~~
ackien
The bystander effect/Genovese syndrome:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect>

Perhaps the effect is quite different when there is just one other bystander,
as opposed to a whole crowd of them.

------
oskarth
You should try different names and titles for the assistant as well:

\- Instead of Alex, what about Sarah (?)?

\- Instead of a standard name, what about a noble rank / recognizable surname
(+?)?

\- Instead of CEO assistant, what about personal assistant (-?), accountant
(+?), future candidate of CEO (+?)

What about varying the person(s) involved depending on the type of project? If
it's a issue of numbers, involve some accountant. If it's about coding,
involve a senior coder, if it's about direction of the company, involve a
imaginary future board member. The possibilites are endless - just make sure
you don't get caught lest you want people to think you have some kind of
disorder.

Just the idea of having someone else looking over your shoulder could increase
the conscientiousness a lot and keep people on their toes. If this got to
become the mainstream way of doing things in some subcommunity it would be
horrible though.

~~~
gaius
Alex is a good name for this, as it's gender-nonspecific. I tend to assume
Alex's are female unless I know otherwise (like Lesley's or Hillary's).

~~~
caw
I wonder what the M:F ratio of the name "Alex" is. I agree that it's not
really gender specific, but I only know 1 "Alexandria", and she doesn't go by
"Alex". This could be a function of my university (70:30 M:F), or it could be
generational (I'm in my 20's). As a result, I tend to default to male.

Perhaps different demographics respond better to different names, based on
their preconceived notions of class and status. Does a really exotic name
change anything?

------
Sword_Monkey
If someone else is cc'ed in then people feel pressure to reply as they aren't
just ignoring one person, there's a whole other person expecting a reply. Even
if that person is someone they've never met, or know of.

~~~
dsirijus
I don't think that alone can account for doubling the response rate.

~~~
Michiel
Why not?

~~~
dsirijus
Because in most of those mails it was mission critical that I receive the
response. The process grinds to a halt if I don't receive response,
irregardless of anyone and anything else. Both Alex and I were tied to the
same process and action. The priority of it is unchanged.

~~~
insertnickname
"Irregardless" is a double negative (and not a proper English word).

~~~
dsirijus
Yes and no to that. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless>

------
krmmalik
I haven't fully understood what you're trying to say, although i am convinced
you might be onto something.

Are you saying that emails that you send to other recipients have a higher
chance they'll be replied to if you CC Alex on the outgoing email?

can you tell me what the increase in replies is as a percentage?

~~~
dsirijus
x2. I couldn't believe it.

I ran the statistics just by plain labeling things consistently, but they're
pretty solid.

EDIT: almost x2

------
liljimmytables
So, assuming one was a lazy slacker and wanted all their email to fall into a
black hole for the purpose of work avoidance, have you got any advice other
than "always mail people without CC?"

It's not for me you understand, it's for a friend.

~~~
dsirijus
Yes.

Never reply-to-all.

No subject.

------
rubyrescue
i have a client who was a small 2-person startup before they got acquired.
They were both doing client facing calls and emails with big multinationals
trying to sell a large product inside a typical 100-200 person division. So
they created a few fake personas in order to make it look like they could
afford a support staff. It's fun to reply all and know that one of the cc'ed
people doesn't exist.

~~~
oskarth
That reminds me of Julian Assange in the beginning of Wikileaks, making up a
lot of fancy titles for imaginary personas in order to make WL seem a lot
bigger than it really was.

~~~
quadhome
[citation needed]

~~~
oskarth
I don't remember where I read it, and I didn't manage to find it after a
couple of minutes of googling. It _could be_ a fabrication but I have two
memories about it that speaks against it:

1) I think it was in a interview with JA himself (could have been the DDB book
though which does indeed make it less credible)

2) It was said in a jokingly and positive way, which suggests it's not
disinformation spread by someone trying to get them.

------
jmmcd
> I've created a imaginary CEO assistant e-mail account named Alex

What's Alex's email address? If it's "Alex Q Alex, CEO
<alex@your_company.com>" people will think the email is more important than if
it's "alex2009@yahoo.com". Unless of course they work for or know your
company, in which case they'll know the CEO isn't him. Actually I'm trying
hard to think of a scenario in which the recipients don't just think you
mistyped the CC, in that case.

EDIT Urgh, you said CEO assistant. I can't read. Disregard this.

~~~
dsirijus
Alex was not CEO, he was CEO assistant, but that doesn't matter at all since
no one actually sent mails from that address, and subsequently have not read
the his mail sig.

The adress was alex@your_company.com

------
bad_user
For your statistic to be relevant, the experiment has to be blind: You must
not know to which recipients you're sending the CC-enhanced version.

Then, the name of the CC-ed recipient may be important, so you have to do this
experiment with multiple "imaginary assistant emails", trying out different
variations of names (male/female, first-name/full-name).

------
adityar
Is the content being mailed the same? are you mailing the same people again
before and after alex was created? are you split-testing -- 1/2 recipients get
the email without alex in CC? You might need some more experiments to
attribute it to pure CC.

~~~
dsirijus
Content is the same, but that's obviously subjective. The conversations were
either all with alex or without, meaning, no reply requests were sent to the
pre-alex mail with alex in cc and I haven't split tested.

~~~
adityar
how about the recipients? If they had an email from you before (part of the 5K
set), then might be more open to replying to the second one (in the 2k set)
even if Alex was not on cc out of guilt?

~~~
dsirijus
Most of the recipients are contacted on relatively regular basis (some daily,
some weekly, some monthly).

------
helen842000
This is interesting because you're saying recipients are _opening_ the mail
and then choosing whether or not to reply after they read it. This shows
e-mails are not just sitting unread.

I always figured that it was the subject line that mattered most and that once
a mail was opened it was more likely they would reply.

I've experimented with improving e-mail structure. I always get a more
detailed reply if I group any questions I want answering together as the final
part of the mail.

------
n3x
Very cool experiment, kudos, and i can see why it works. But did you actually
say in the emails "ccing my assistant?"

Even if you didn't i am not sure how legal it would be. Just by ccing someone,
you mislead the other party, eg that you have someone else in your company. Of
course the argument for "don't use for important emails" is invalid, why you
can mislead some and not others?

And when in doubt, i say no.

~~~
dsirijus
No, no e-mail sent nor received had any mention of Alex in any way outside him
being in Cc.

I hardly believe it's at all illegal to have an e-mail address in Cc field,
even if it's imaginary. E-mail isn't Facebook. :)

------
Praveens
If we are to neglect the importance of the email and solely judge on one's
replying instinct when there is a email id in the cc field, then i feel i am
obligated to reply as there is a certain amount of importance attached to the
content of the email and its reply would be monitored by not just the sender
but also the person in cc.

------
3xBcF32xNi3kh7i
Would you mind sharing the statistical sample size? It's hard to talk about
statistics without it.

~~~
dsirijus
It was not rigorous, but here they are...

Pre-Alex I've ran through 5 months of mails, which amounted to ~5k mails, and
sorted them out (there was already label Waiting done for me). Post-Alex, in 2
months of mails the sample size was ~2k mails.

Number of e-mail addresses contacted within those 7 month period is ~70.

~~~
TeeOff
So you _send_ ~50 mail every (working) day? Could your sheer volume skew the
result? (as in: spam people and they start to ignore you, put someone on CC
and they have reason to believe it's worth reading?)

~~~
dsirijus
I send mails every (week) day, and favor it in front of any other form of
business communication.

I've sent 17 since I've started this thread.

~~~
citricsquid
I'm curious, what's the _average_ email of those 17? Like, what's the subject
and/or value to the recipient and you?

~~~
dsirijus
Sending stuff for approval and approving stuff done. This is a busy day,
though.

------
drx
You should re-run the experiment and make it double-blind.

~~~
dsirijus
My sample is tainted now. Someone else should do it.

------
ArekDymalski
Pretty interesting. Before jumping to conclusions let me ask how many
variables (time of day, wording of subject, frequency of sent emails, history
of relationship with the recipient etc.) can you claim to "have under
control"? Did you start CCing Alex for all 70 recpients? I'm asking coz there
might be several explanations for the effect (assuming it's statistically
significant and methodologically acceptable)

------
scoot
_In those mails not replied to, mails WITH someone in Cc and mails WITHOUT
anyone in Cc are in ratio of ~2/11._

Am I missing something, or does this have no statistical relationship to the
number of replies received?

Mails replied to could have _all_ had a CC, or _none_ had a CC and the CC
ration for unreplied mails still be the same, no?

~~~
dsirijus
Yes, quite right. It's superfluous.

------
israelyc
Really interesting, have you tested the effect on gmail priority inbox? it
could explain a higher open rate.. and it would awesome to know that cc is
part of their rankings..

[EDIT]- Also, if you all set with labels already, would you mind continuing
the test with something like SigBuzz (g apps) to track open rates and keep us
posted?

~~~
dsirijus
No, I don't use priority inbox.

~~~
mobweb
I think he means that it might have an effect on other people's priority
inbox. It could be that if an incoming E-Mail has another recipient, GMail
thinks this E-Mail might be more important and place it in the priority inbox.

~~~
dsirijus
Yes. I misunderstood.

I know for a fact that most of those contacted do not use Gmail. Only one
confirmedly does.

There might be other corporate non-public solutions that do that, on the other
hand.

------
TobbenTM
I would think it is because the email becomes more personal and social. More
people 'collaborate'.

~~~
jtheory
In particular, more social.

My suspicion is that when recipients see the cc with a name they don't know,
they're suddenly in the position of making a first impression on someone that
don't know yet, but will probably be working with in the future.

Another possible (related) thought -- here's an assistant who will be taking
over some of these conversations, and thus they're probably talking about me
(...so if I don't reply now, that's what they'll be discussing).

People care what others think of them; these people already know the original
sender and have a stable relationship they don't feel will be threatened by a
slow response (which easily slips into no response); but this adds a new
person into the mix.

------
Tyrannosaurs
Has anything about your role, the work you're doing or the success or
otherwise of your company changed in the past two months?

~~~
dsirijus
Of course it has. Not significantly.

------
JoeAltmaier
Are you cold-emailing folks? In a close work group, I'd have guess replies
would be near 100%.

------
franze
the raw data would be nice - the full emails would be best,but just the sent
w. cc,sent w.o. cc figures, time of message, time of response, number of
reponse asking who is alex, .... anonymified recipents,... such data would be
cool,

