Why do the tech guys so often have to be so marketing illiterate? Is it too much for them to understand that online advertising is: a) good for the economy, and b) usually not an evil exercise in mind control?
The Linux Journal—the self proclaimed original monthly magazine of the Linux community since 1994—ran an eye-poppingly confused piece last week by tech writer Tom Adelstein about the terrible evils of e-mail marketing.
The article headlined “The Federal Government Sanctioned Spam Trap” begins like this:
“Would you like to buy a mailing list and start a Broadcast Campaign? Then just put some kind of message at the bottom of the e-mail that says unsubscribe or opt-out and a physical address like 201 Mullview Place, Bigfoot, Montana 59106. Make sure you have a subject line and a header.
“If you did that you just fulfilled the requirements for broadcasts or blind spamming. You can also make the opting out mechanism as difficult as possible. For example, I attempted to opt out of a newsletter to which I didn’t subscribe and when I got to the company’s Web site, it asked me for a password. To get a password, I had to register. You can draw your own conclusion.”
Yes, we are indeed drawing our own conclusions, and they aren’t about e-mail marketers.
So let’s get this straight: Adelstein—a seemingly accomplished tech journalist—is telling readers that all they have to do is put some random address and an opt-out mechanism that is almost impossible to use in unsolicited commercial e-mail, and they’re operating within the law.
Even the most fanatical, bomb-throwing, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-spammer would have straightened Adelstein out on this one. If only he’d asked.
Under federal law, all commercial e-mail must contain a working opt-out mechanism and the marketer has 10 days honor the request of anyone who uses it. The publisher of the newsletter to which Adelstein refers is breaking the law, plain and simple. It in no way reflects on the rest of marketing.
Adelstein then goes on to describe what he claims is the difference between “broadcast” and “transactional” e-mails.
“The term Broadcast is a euphemism for spamming anybody,” he wrote. “If you want a mailing list, you can hold a contest for something like a hot car or a mink coat and make sure each entry has a line for an e-mail address. Why an e-mail address? So, the department store can e-mail you if you win? Somehow that seems a little deceitful to me. The law says you just opted-in and triggered a transaction or triggered e-mails, which differ from Broadcast e-mail.”
What law is this guy reading? And whose bizarro-marketing thesaurus did he pick up? Broadcast is a euphemism for spamming anybody?
Meanwhile, Adelstein is building up to an extremely important point—in Linux land, anyway. The next paragraph is a breathtaking piece of irresponsible anti-marketing ignorance:
“Let’s review the difference between a Broadcast campaign and a Transactional campaign,” he wrote. “Senders also call the latter a triggered e-mail. The law says that if you take some action to cause a response, you moved into the Transactional pool. That changes the game. The requirements to provide a mechanism to unsubscribe or opt-out is not required. Also, the sender does not have to provide a physical address. Imagine some company having you on their permanent spam list. How do you get off?”
HA HA HA HA BOOM!! Oops, sorry. That was my fat rear end hitting the floor after falling out of my chair.
The federal Can Spam Act specifically defines transactional e-mail and says nothing about some cockamamie “transactional pool.”
If a message fails to meet the definition of transactional—which is fairly straightforward, but too tedious to repeat here—it’s commercial and the rest of the Can Spam Act applies. There is no magic provision in the law that allows companies to make opt-out requests impossible, or ignore them just because someone responded to a previous promotion.
Under no circumstances is it permissible by law for a company to keep people on some “permanent spam list” against their will.
But wait, here’s another anti-marketing gem from techie-ignoramusville:
“Some companies have scruples and will only send you a receipt for something you purchase on-line,” Adelstein wrote. “I can live with that. They do not keep a data warehouse of everything they know about you. The temptation remains, though, especially if they receive visits from e-mail service providers who explain how they can manipulate you to either buy something on-line or visit the company store.”
Ooh, those eeeevil e-mail service providers explain to retailers how consumers can all be oh-so-easily manipulated, and wham, free will just leaks right out of people’s mushy little heads.
Next time someone tries to sell you something, roll your hands into fists, press them knuckles-inward on the sides your head, scrunch your eyes real tight, and start rocking back and forth while screaming in a nasally voice: “STOP MANIPULATING MEEEEEEE!!!!”
And of course, what anti-marketing rant would be complete without a call for criminalizing information-based advertising?
“Marketers using e-mail as part of a comprehensive marketing campaign have more tools and techniques with which to work [than bricks-and-mortar retailers offering impulse items during checkout],” he wrote. “It may not seem like a criminal action, but who is going to do anything about it and make it a criminal action?”
Um, no one? Like, we had this big national discussion about communism for, like, about 80 years and decided it isn’t for us and that we prefer mostly free-market capitalism, remember?
To be fully appreciated, Adelstein’s article should be read in its entirety. Here is a link: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000242.
Network
