I have contended for years that sales-and-marketing executives are arguably the most under-appreciated professionals there are. Want to insult someone? Call him a used-car salesman.
But sales reps and marketers are what make capitalism work. Countries that do away with sales and marketing tend to start work camps and gulags.
So I defend the sales and marketing professions loudly and often.
But invariably, a sales rep or marketer will come along and embarrass me by exhibiting the worst traits of their profession.
Such is the case this week in a guest column on KansasCity.com written by one Todd Natenberg, president of TBN Sales Solutions in Leawood, KS.
In the column headlined “In Defense of Spam,” Natenberg begins: “If you don’t want people to call you, don’t have your phone number listed. If you don’t want people to speak to you, don’t go out in public. And if you don’t want people to e-mail you, don’t own a computer.”
Oh, and it gets better.
“Supporters of anti-spam legislation argue e-mail should only be sent to those who request it through an ‘opt in’ feature. This is absurd. Recipients need to see an e-mail first to ‘opt in.’ Not only that, but if they choose to opt in, there’s a strong chance they are customers already,” Natenberg continued .
“‘Opt in’ is paramount to asking permission to ask permission to ask someone to buy — who still may say no,” he wrote.
Todd, Todd, Todd.
Some of us who don’t support making opt-in e-mail marketing compulsory under the law also don’t think companies should send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail. [For the record, I think one-off unsolicited e-mail sales pitches are fine.]
Marketers rightly argue that they must be able to approach people and inform them of products and services they may need or want, the existence of which they may be unaware. True, but this doesn’t give sales and marketing reps the right to consume other people’s resources to deliver their pitches—which is what spamming does.
But of course, readers of this newsletter know this already, right? Right?!
Moreover, there are plenty of ways to prospect without spamming people.
The point here is not to get overly worked up over one column by one guy on a Midwestern consumer newspaper Web site.
The point is that Natenberg’s not alone. Ignorance of the unacceptable economics and brand-damaging ramifications of spam is still rampant in marketing. Otherwise, how could a firm like eMailAppenders and all its various aliases thrive?
And when this ignorance is so publicly displayed, it hurts the profession.
Maybe some readers should click on over to KansasCity.com and politely explain in the comments section that many in marketing don’t hold Natenberg’s views.
