Spam is in the eye of the beholder

But only the opinion of the recipient counts. So says a blog post on All Spammed Up.

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to decide that. And by “you” I mean businesses. Businesses and their marketing departments who look at email as a fast, convenient way to reach a lot of people with their very important messages.
Now for the purposes of this discussion I’ll make some definitions clear. I’m not talking about the kind of spam that botnets send out to try and trick people into buying fake pharmaceutical goods or a counterfeit watch.
I’m talking about UCE – unsolicited commercial email. The kind of email you get when a company decides to add you to their marketing newsletter without you ever requesting it, and without a double opt-in process. The law might say this isn’t spam, but every customer I talk to says it is. And guess who gets to decide that? The customer does.

There is more than a grain of truth in there. Recipients have more influence in the spam / not-spam decision than senders do. Even if a sender is complying with CAN SPAM, recipients may still call the mail spam. And if the recipients tell their ISP, their spam filtering company or their mail client that the mail is spam then the sender may lose access to that recipient. If enough recipients tell an ISP mail is spam, then the sender loses access to all recipients at that ISP.
This shift in influence to the receivers means that senders need to remember that keeping recipients happy is a critical part of any successful email marketing program. Senders that annoy their recipients lose access to those recipients and their wallets.

Related Posts

The psychic and the not-really-opt-in

I’ve been getting a continual stream of spam from a psychic. I blogged about it a few months ago, and even had a call with the psychic’s ESP. None of that seemed to matter. Every few days I’d get another ad for psychic candles, or recording services or whatever. It wasn’t mail I could easily filter, and every time I’d get it I’d growl and dump it in my junk folder.
Yesterday, I received another mail from her. The subject line is “list opt-in verification.” Really? Could she really be actually confirming her list? Actually asking if I want to continue receiving mail?

Read More

We only mail people who sign up!

I get a lot of calls from clients who can’t understand why they have spamtraps on their lists. Most of them tell me that they never purchase or rent lists, and they only mail to people who sign up on their website. I believe them, but not all of the data that people input into webforms is correct.
While I don’t have any actual numbers for how many people lie in forms, there was a slashdot poll today that asked readers “How truthful are you when creating web accounts?”. The answer seems to be “not very” at least for the self-selected respondents.

Read More

Links for 9/2/09

People are still talking about the White House spamming. At Al Iverson’s Spam Resource there are two posts, one from Jaren Angerbauer titled Guest Post: Email and the White House and another from Al himself titled White House Spam, Signup Forgery, and GovDelivery. Both are insightful discussions of the spam that the White House has been sending. Over at ReturnPath, Stephanie Miller talks about how the publicity surrounding the spam is great PR for permission.
Stefan Pollard has an article at ClickZ looking at how an apology email in response to a recipient visible email mistake can actually make the fallout worse.
Web Ink Now documents one recipient’s experience with a bad, but all too common, subscription practice.
==
Don’t forget to participate in the DKIM implementation survey. For ESPs. For ISPs. Check back next week for results.

Read More