> but the 97.8% of people didn't respond is by far the more important number. I think the more helpful baseline is likely the folks that opened the email (we c

> but the 97.8% of people didn't respond is by far the more important number. I think the more helpful baseline is likely the folks that opened the email (we can't infer a lot from the ones that didn't -- email services may have simply junk-mailed the message for the other 54.2%). 27 / 560 is 4.8% which is still not awesome, but it's really not terrible. 1 in 20 people who saw OP question about the service were compelled enough to provide a response. That's not bad. > If you can't get a significant response from a group who are (allegedly) interested in your type of product then you clearly have a big messaging problem. I really wouldn't be so down on it. What's the average read-to-recommend on the average unsolicited call to action message? How many people actually provide extra details when an application on our computers crashes and the OS wants to send a bug report? How many actually send the bug report? That's just a button click. Providing their email for updates is a good indicator the base pitch is interesting, true. But it's an almost mindless activity. How many times a month does the average technophile give away an email address? Enough times, is how many. And enough times to likely forget more often than not what they'd signed up for a day ago, let alone continue to really, really care about it. I'm sure OP could have built a more compelling email campaign that used the right communication strategies to elicit a greater response. But, I'll take 5% over 0.