Stephanie Miller from RP blogs at EEC about a UK consumer survey with the take home message: “consumers notice what email marketers do. When we send something interesting and relevant at a good pace, they are happy to stay active with our programs. When we don’t… well, then we’ve lost them, perhaps for good.”
Yesterday I blogged about eROIs contention that consumers should not be wasting the time of lead gen companies by filling in fake data. There were lots of good comments on the post, and I strongly encourage you to go read them if you are interested in different perspectives on the data issue.
One of the arguments I was making is that people are only going to give accurate information if they trust the website that is collecting information. I do, strongly, believe this. I also believe very strongly that websites collecting information need to do so defensively. It is the only way you can get good information.
This ties in with an earlier post about a website that collects email addresses from any visitor, then turns around and submits those addresses to webforms. Hundreds of mailing lists have already been corrupted by this group. They are a prime reason companies must design address collection process defensively. There are people who do bad things, who will take an opportunity to harass senders and recipients. This company is not the first, nor will they be the last to commit such abuses.
Taking a stand against abusive companies and people may be useful, but that will not stop the abuse. It is much easier to design process that limits the amount of abuse. For lead gen, in particular, confirmed opt-in is one way to limit the amount of bad data collected. As a side effect, it also results in less blocked mail, fewer complaints and better delivery.
I have been dealing with a client delivery issue at a major ISP recently. During the course of troubleshooting my client tested mail delivery using a personal email account. This client noticed that email was delivered promptly. He then asked me if it was possible to get the ISP to prioritize his bulk mail over personal email. The short answer is no, ISPs do prioritize one-to-one email over bulk email.
Answering the question for him crystallized some vague thoughts that ended up running through my head at the conference last week. During the conference, and similar email conferences, conference call and any discussion that involves senders and receivers, there is usually little discussion of end users.
End users. Those people who are recipients of the emails that senders send. Those people who are customers of the nreceiver ISPs. End users who are almost never involved in the conversation, but without whom there would not be a conversation. These are the people that really matter. These are who senders need to engage. These are who the receivers need to keep happy.
It is, in fact, the end users who want one-to-one email more than they want bulk mail. Even the best bulk mail is not as engaging as that email from your best friend, or the problem solving with a colleague, or the latest gossip. ISPs know this, and they do not prioritize bulk mail, no matter how well managed and how engaging, over one-to-one mail.
This morning I got spam about college basketball – Subject: Inside: your ESPN Tourney Guide. That’s anything but unusual, but this spam got through my spam filters and into my inbox. That’s a rare enough event that I’m already annoyed before I click on the mail in order to mark it as spam.
Wait a second, the spam claims to be from Adobe. And it’s sent to a tagged address that I only gave to Adobe. Sure enough, it’s Adobe and ESPN co-branded spam about college basketball sent to an Adobe list.
Down at the bottom of the email there’s a blob of tiny illegible text, in very pale grey on white. Buried in there is an opt-out link: “If you’d prefer not to receive e-mail like this from Adobe in the future, please click here to unsusbscribe“.
I’d prefer not to receive college sports spam from anyone, including Adobe, so I click on it and find a big empty white webpage with this in the middle of it: