<i>&gt; but the 97.8% of people didn&#x27;t respond is by far the more important number.</i><p>I think the more helpful baseline is likely the folks that opened the email (we can&#x27;t infer a lot from the ones that didn&#x27;t -- email services may have simply junk-mailed the message for the other 54.2%). 27 &#x2F; 560 is 4.8% which is still not awesome, but it&#x27;s really not terrible.<p>1 in 20 people who saw OP question about the service were compelled enough to provide a response. That&#x27;s not bad.<p>&gt; If you can&#x27;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.<p>I really wouldn&#x27;t be so down on it. What&#x27;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?<p>How many actually send the bug report? That&#x27;s just a button click.<p>Providing their email for updates is a good indicator the base pitch is interesting, true. But it&#x27;s an almost mindless activity. How many times a month does the average technophile give away an email address?<p>Enough times, is how many. And enough times to likely forget more often than not what they&#x27;d signed up for a day ago, let alone continue to really, really care about it.<p>I&#x27;m sure OP could have built a more compelling email campaign that used the right communication strategies to elicit a greater response. But, I&#x27;ll take 5% over 0.