Shouldn’t We be Beyond This?

A comment left after a recent article in Magilla Marketing perfectly illustrated that this newsletter’s work is far from over.

The comment followed a piece in which I criticized big-name brands for adding customer names to their files without asking.

Here is the comment from “Baffled” unedited with the exception of a few minor style changes:

“Your definition of opt-in holds these very legitimate marketers to a completely higher standard than ever defined or envisioned in Can Spam,” wrote Baffled.

“We all know there’s such a thing as permission-based spam, but the consumer needs to be equally aware that if he/she buys a product online and provides their e-mail address… and then doesn’t bother to read the privacy language the marketer clearly offers….then shame on the consumer the first time,” continued Baffled.

“Shame on the marketer the second time if they can’t make their e-mail relevant or timely. That’s why an easy unsubscribe is now part of the gig. If Return Path wants to call e-mail coming from these marketers Spam, that’s one thing…but a journalist as seasoned as you shouldn’t follow this train off the bridge. Also, I don’t see Sears, Target or Wal-Mart hawking Viagra, Rolexes or Nigerian treasures.”

Man, oh, man. It’s difficult to know where to start with this one.

First, expecting consumers to read privacy policies is extremely customer unfriendly. It’s like making someone sign a contract every time they buy a shirt.

Second: the accepted definition of spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail, period.

I’m not claiming these firms are spamming. I’m stating a fact. They simply are.

I’m also not moralizing about this issue, though there’s a moral argument to be made about sucking up other companies’ bandwidth with bulk messages recipients didn’t ask for.

Oh, and Can Spam? It’s irrelevant in this discussion. Internet service providers will block mailers from reaching recipients long before they violate Can Spam.

Spam complaints are the No. 1 gauge Internet service providers use to decide how to handle a sender’s mail. Too many spam complaints results in delivery troubles. This has nothing to do with Can Spam.

ISPs own their networks. Sure, property rights are not absolute. But as has been reported in this newsletter and explained here, ISPs are under no legal obligation to deliver e-mail from marketers they deem as spammers.

And when marketers do get blocked, reportedly the absolute worst thing they can do is contact the ISPs abuse desk and claim they should lift the block because the firm’s e-mail is Can Spam compliant.

The marketer who claims to be Can Spam compliant is saying he has done the absolute bare minimum to stay within the law. Simply complying with Can Spam isn’t even close to enough to ensure e-mail delivery.

And just because major brands aren’t “hawking Viagra, Rolexes or Nigerian treasures,” as Baffled put it, also doesn’t mean their mail won’t get blocked.

Message to Baffled: Look, I’ve got nothing against you. I appreciate you sharing your opinion and I hope this column doesn’t prevent you from doing so again. But too many marketers agree with you and it hurts everybody. It’s not a coincidence that Epsilon reported last week that click rates have dropped steadily for at least two years.

And not only are they hurting the marketplace, they’re putting their own online marketing efforts at severe risk.

I don’t make the rules. I just write about them.