Recent comments


On my followup EEC post Tamara comments

The eec made a really bad and ugly mistake but you can take my word for it that they have learned from it and that it will not happen again. I am not going to blog about this because I really do believe in the value of the EEC and what it brings to the industry. It’s okay to call out a mistake, but do you really need to destroy an organization that is so worthwile?

Just to be clear I had not heard of the EEC before this and when the story broke I blew it off as no big deal, some organization did something stupid and spammed. It was only after I did a little research that I realized this was THE organization that was supposed to be leading the pack in email marketing. They are

[…] a global professional organization that strives to enhance the image of email marketing and communications, while celebrating and actively advocating its critical importance in business, and its ROI value.

And, yet, they send mail that was perceived by many of their recipients as spam. While I have not seen copies of the mail, two posters commented that the mail did not comply with CAN SPAM. One of those said there was no opt-out link. Putting aside any of the permission or relevancy questions, if this is true then it takes it from a bad idea to illegal activity. How does this organization maintain any credibility as a leader in the email marketing space?
As for the negative comments, I fully expect that if Word to the Wise pulled something like this, there would be a lot of negativity and people holding us accountable for our actions. I do not see with the EEC should expect anything different from their base.
There was a funny comment from EEC Member pointing out that the EEC had brought us standardization of the spelling of email.
On my Email non-viable for acquisition post, Josh disagreed. He says

I think saying that “email is not viable for customer acquisition” might be too broad of a statement. I wouldn’t have any problem with “Purchasing lists is not viable for customer acquisition.”

I think his point is well taken. There are places where you buy a mailing, or buy an advertisement and that does drive acquisition as well as sales. I am still wary of using email for acquisition as most of the companies who come to me with that business model mean purchasing lists or co-reg when they say acquisition.
There have been a number of comments about Postini. Jay Levitt had a couple of comments that sum up the frustration that many of us have had with Postini.

I too tried to get a human at Postini. I took three different back-channel routes to get there. They all landed at the same person – apparently the one guy who sends out “we’re not responsible no matter what” form letters to anyone who writes to Postini. He told me, and I can’t make this up:
Postini was scoring my e-mails as “spammy” because Postini had previously scored my e-mails as spammy.

Dennis also commented about Postini:

I was told that if you take a document originally typed on an application such as MS Word and then copy and paste this into the marketing e-mail it gives it funky html code that for some reason gives your e-mail a lower score in Postini.

Cutting and pasting from MS Word has a myriad of problems, not just Postini delivery. One thing I emphasize with my clients is that their email structure must be clean and standards compliant. So many spammers out there are using badly formatted HTML mails, that the ISPs are looking at the technical structure of your email and using that as part of their filtering decisions. This confirmation from Postini only reinforces that.
Have a good weekend, everyone!

About the author

Add comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By laura

Recent Posts


Follow Us