Email is a small enough discipline that the same advice gets repeated for years past the point of being true. Three subject-line myths still circulating that are worth re-examining.
The advice originated in mobile-first thinking from circa 2012, when most inboxes were rendering tiny subject lines and senders panicked about truncation. The data has since gotten more nuanced.
What we see in current scoring data:
The structural truth: if your headline payload is in the first 30 characters, truncation doesn't hurt you. 'Quick question about onboarding — saw your pricing page' renders the headline ('Quick question about onboarding') in the visible portion; the trailing context is bonus signal for the recipient who clicks through.
What actually matters is the first 30 characters carrying the message. Long subjects aren't penalized when they do that; short subjects aren't safer when they don't.
This was reliably true in 2015. It hasn't been true for at least three years.
The honest current state:
The practical implication: stop scheduling sends around theoretical 'best times.' Send when your audience is awake. If you're a creator with subscribers across timezones, pick a consistent time and stick to it — the consistency builds the open-rate habit more than any timing advantage.
The only timing optimization that still moves the needle in our data is industry-specific. Lifestyle DTC brands genuinely do better on weekend mornings. B2B genuinely does better on midweek mornings. But the optimization is 'pick the right day of the week' — not 'find the magic 10am vs. 11am edge.'
Not really. Used sparingly when they add meaning, emojis are roughly neutral on deliverability across major MBPs.
The cases where emojis genuinely hurt:
The cases where emojis are fine or even helpful:
The structural advice: emoji-or-not is not the lever. Subject-line content is the lever. If your emoji adds meaning, keep it; if it's decorative, drop it.
Most email myths originated from a moment when the underlying advice was true, and stuck around past the point of relevance.
The way to avoid believing your own outdated rules: test against your actual list. Not theoretical 'best practice' tests — A/B tests on your specific audience. A 2017 'best practice' could easily be wrong for your 2026 list. The discipline is to verify against your own data, not Google's collective folk wisdom.
Three practical takeaways:
If you want help writing subjects with predicted-open-rate scoring, try our subject-line tool. Free anonymous run, no signup. And our predicted A/B winner tool can score two subject variants before you send if your list is too small for statistical testing.
Free anonymous run, no signup.
Try the editor