BLOG

Co-reg

Well over half of the clients who come to me with delivery problems admit at some point that one of the ways they collect subscribers is through co-registration. They typically have widespread delivery problems at the major ISPs as well as SBL listings.

John Levine posted over the weekend about his thoughts on co-reg.

So a friend asked, is it possible to do coreg that doesn’t stink?
After a variety of more complex suggestions, I offered a simple criterion: if it’s one opt-in, it’s one opt-out. That is, if I signed up in one place, and I later decide that I don’t like all the mail from Our [Trusted Marketing Partners], I want to unsub once and have it all stop.

Therein lies the rub. Most companies selling addresses through co-reg will tell you that they can’t take any responsibility for what happens to the address after the sell it. They will point out it is not financially viable for them to track what happens to their subscribers. The question I have never received a satisfactory answer to is: If you don’t know what your trusted marketing partners are doing with the addresses you are selling to them, how is a subscriber expected to give informed permission

On the flip side, companies who buy co-reg usually have a rash of excuses for why they will not take responsibility for gathering permission from the recipients. They don’t want to send welcome messages. They won’t tell the recipient who sold them the address. They won’t ask sellers how many other senders this address was sold to. They will not confirm the recipient wants mail from them. In my, admittedly biased, experience the entire co-reg industry is about obfuscation and hiding from recipients. This goes equally for the sellers and the buyers.

Over at the Exacttarget blog, Al talks about a successful way to do co-reg.

Direct co-registration is far less problematic. That’s a scenario wherein a site explicitly asks a registrant if they want mail from company X, Y or Z, and then, if the registrant only agrees to mail from company X, only company X is given the registrant’s email address. Sounds like opt-in to me.

His experience matches with mine. If there is transparency in the transaction, that is both the seller and they buyer inform the recipient what is going to happen to an email address then the recipient can make an informed decision. However, when the recipient is just told that their address will be shared, there is no informed opt-in and the recipient treats the mail as spam.

Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Blogging

    It's been a wild week here in the US. I have to admit, the current political climate is affecting my ability to blog about email. I've always said email is not life or death. And how can I focus on the minutia of deliverability when things are in such turmoil and uncertainty? There are many things I want to write about, including some resources for those of us who are struggling with the current administration and changes in the US. What we can do. What we must do.  It just takes work and focus I don't have right now.    1 Comment


  • Email trends for 2017

    Freshmail has published a list of email marketing trends for 2017 from some of their favorite experts. I am honored to be included. Go check it out!No Comments


  • AOL FBL change

    Reminder for folks, AOL is changing their FBL from address starting on Jan 17th. AOLlogoForBlogThe (in)famous scomp@aol.net is going away to be replaced by fbl-no-reply @ postmaster.aol.com. These messages will be signed with the d= mx.postmaster.aol.com. Time to update your scripts!No Comments


Archives