(E-Zine IQ) Webster might not agree with the Federal Trade Commission’s definition of the word “sender.” But marketers have reason to be happy about it.

The FTC has determined that multiple advertisers in an e-mail newsletter cannot all be held responsible for the letter’s Can-Spam compliance. Instead, the commission would allow the advertisers to designate one sender.

Published in the May 12 issue of the Federal Register, the proposed rule change clears up a niggling holdover from passage of the Can-Spam Act, and was welcomed by e-mail vendors and trade groups.

“This is good for marketers,” said Elaine O’Gorman, vice president of marketing for Silverpop. “It gives you the standard under which you can name only one person to be responsible for opt-out data.”

Jerry Cerasale, senior vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, agrees. “Multiple advertisers can pick the sender,” he said. “Only one has to be the sender and be responsible for scrubbing the list.”

The main beneficiaries are the publishers of advertiser-supported newsletters and their advertisers. Commenters had argued that requiring the use of multiple suppression lists would increase costs and “endanger the existence of such newsletters,” the FTC noted in the Federal Register.

Apparently agreeing with this, the FTC stated that “one of several persons whose products or services are advertised or promoted in an e-mail message” can be the sender. However, that entity would have meet one of three criteria: It would have to control the content, choose the mailing list or be identified in the from line.

Despite their relief, observers noted there are a couple of clinkers in the proposed rule change. One is that the opt-out response time would be changed from ten days to three, according to O’Gorman.

“We think they’re going to get universal push-back on that,” she said. “It’s an invitation for us to back up trucks to the FTC loading docks with reams of data.”

Another is the proviso that no advertiser who is not the designated sender can have control of the content of the e-mail. This could include the “narrative in between where you place the ads,” Cerasale said. The DMA plans to comment on this.

The FTC has set June 27 as the deadline for final comment on the proposal.

Webster might not agree with the Federal Trade Commission’s definition of the word “sender.” But marketers have reason to be happy about it.

The FTC has determined that multiple advertisers in an e-mail newsletter cannot all be held responsible for the letter’s Can-Spam compliance. Instead, the commission would allow the advertisers to designate one sender.

Published in the May 12 issue of the Federal Register, the proposed rule change clears up a niggling holdover from passage of the Can-Spam Act, and was welcomed by e-mail vendors and trade groups.

“This is good for marketers,” said Elaine O’Gorman, vice president of marketing for Silverpop. “It gives you the standard under which you can name only one person to be responsible for opt-out data.”

Jerry Cerasale, senior vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, agrees. “Multiple advertisers can pick the sender,” he says. “Only one has to be the sender and be responsible for scrubbing the list.”

The main beneficiaries are the publishers of advertiser-supported newsletters and their advertisers. Commenters had argued that requiring the use of multiple suppression lists would increase costs and “endanger the existence of such newsletters,” the FTC noted in the Federal Register.

Apparently agreeing with this, the FTC stated that “one of several persons whose products or services are advertised or promoted in an e-mail message” can be the sender. However, that entity would have meet one of three criteria: It would have to control the content, choose the mailing list or be identified in the from line.

Despite their relief, observers noted there are a couple of clinkers in the proposed rule change. One is that the opt-out response time would be changed from ten days to three, according to O’Gorman.

“We think they’re going to get universal push-back on that,” she says. “It’s an invitation for us to back up trucks to the FTC loading docks with reams of data.”

Another is the proviso that no advertiser who is not the designated sender can have control of the content of the e-mail. This could include the “narrative in between where you place the ads,” Cerasale says. The DMA plans to comment on this.

The FTC has set June 27 as the deadline for final comment on the proposal.