Why does email scale better for one-to-many communication?

Still have a question, spotted an error, or have a better explanation or a source we should cite?

Because SMTP was designed to replicate a single message to many recipients without opening a new connection for each one.

When you send an email to 10,000 people, you're not making 10,000 separate connections. Your mail server opens a connection to each receiving server (say, Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo) and says "I have a message for these 1,000 recipients." The receiving server accepts the list, stores one copy of the message, and delivers it to all 1,000 mailboxes. One connection, one transmission, thousands of deliveries.

Compare that to SMS or push notifications. Each recipient needs a separate transmission. Send to 10,000 people, pay for 10,000 sends. Email? You pay for bandwidth to transmit the message a few dozen times (once per receiving mail server), not once per recipient. That's why you can send a newsletter to 50,000 subscribers for pennies, but texting 50,000 people costs thousands of dollars.

Chat apps and messaging platforms work differently because they're built for real-time synchronous communication. They maintain persistent connections so messages appear instantly. That's perfect for a conversation between two people or a small group. But try to broadcast a message to 50,000 people at once? The infrastructure cost explodes. You're paying to keep 50,000 connections open simultaneously, just in case someone wants to reply.

Email doesn't care if recipients are online. It doesn't wait for acknowledgment. It drops the message in the mailbox and moves on. That's why ARPANET mailing lists like SF-LOVERS (a sci-fi discussion list from 1980) worked so well with the technology of the time. One message, hundreds of recipients, no problem.

This is also why ESPs can offer such aggressive pricing for email compared to SMS platforms. Brevo charges around $25/month for 20,000 emails. Twilio charges around $0.0079 per SMS, so 20,000 texts would cost $158. The protocol design makes all the difference.

If you're choosing between email and other channels for marketing campaigns, email wins on cost and scale every time. Save SMS for time-sensitive, high-value messages (shipping updates, appointment reminders, two-factor auth). Use email for everything else.

Contributors

Who worked on this answer

Every name links to their profile. Every company links to their site. Real people, real accountability.

Ask an AI · tailored to your setup

Get my custom channel strategy →

I read this on the Email Almanac about "Why does email scale better for one-to-many communication": "SMTP was designed to replicate a single message to many recipients without opening a new connection for each one. When you send to 10,000 people, your mail server opens a connection to each receiving server and says 'I have a message for these 1,000 recipients.' One connection, one transmission, thousands of deliveries. Compare that to SMS or push notifications, where each recipient needs a separate transmission." Help me apply this to MY channel strategy: 1. Current channels: [e.g. email newsletter, SMS alerts, push notifications, in-app messages] 2. Audience size: e.g. 5,000 subscribers, 50,000 app users 3. Message frequency: e.g. weekly newsletter, daily updates, transactional only 4. Budget constraints: e.g. tight budget, cost-per-send matters, unlimited budget Based on what I've shared, help me: - Rank which messages should go through which channel (email vs SMS vs push) - Calculate approximate cost differences for my volumes - Identify where I'm overpaying by using the wrong channel - Suggest a practical channel strategy that balances cost and impact

Edit the yellow boxes, then send to the AI of your choice.