Implied permission

Codified into law in CASL, implied permission describes the situation where a company can legally mail someone. The law includes caveats and restrictions about when this is a legitimate assumption on the part of the company. It is, in fact, a kludge. There isn’t such a thing as implied permission. Someone either gives you permission to send them email or they don’t.
We use the term implied permission to describe a situation where the recipient didn’t actually ask for the mail, but isn’t that bothered about receiving it. The mail is there. If it has a particularly good deal the recipient might buy something. The flip side of not being bothered about receiving mail, is not being bothered about not receiving mail. If it’s not there, eh,  no biggie.

Implied permission isn’t real permission, no matter what the law says.
Now, many deliverability folks, including myself, understand that there are recipients who don’t mind getting mail from vendors. We know this is a valid and effective way of marketing. Implied permission is a thing and doesn’t always hurt delivery.
However, that does not mean that implied permission is identical to explicit permission. It’s one of the things I think CASL gets very right. Implied permission has a shelf life and expires. Explicit permission doesn’t have a shelf life.
Implied permission is real, but not a guarantee that the recipient really wants a particular email from a sender, even if they want other emails from that sender.

Permission isn’t binary.

In the marketing space we talk about permission as if it’s a binary status. Either we have permission to send email or we don’t. But that doesn’t reflect the complexity of marketing programs. Maybe a recipient wants a password reset email and the occasional social alert, but doesn’t want the weekly newsletter. One recipient might be OK with 3 emails a day, while another would like one a week.
It’s a rare case where this granular permission is collected upfront. And there’s good reason for that, too much choice overwhelms and it’s better to limit options.

Opens aren’t permission.

We’ve fallen down a hole where opens have turned into this proxy for permission. I think that’s why so many people freak out when they discover that sometimes spamtraps will load image pixels or follow links in emails. But following a link or loading an image isn’t permission. It might be interest. It’s even interest from the person running the spamtrap, but not necessarily the good kind of interest.  Or it could simply be that the user needs their password so they opened the password mail.
An open / image load is not permission. At best it means that the recipient can load images in emails they open. Maybe they actually even enjoy it and will enjoy future emails. But it’s not permission. Now, from enough engagement data we can assume that the recipient wants to receive email. But that’s still implied permission at best.

Now what?

What is we keep doing what we’re doing. Making the best decisions about marketing programs with the information we have. It’s all we really can do in the now. But, as we look to how we want our marketing to grow and improve we must look at the whole picture. Marketers have the data to make good decisions, but only if they ask the right questions.
 
 
 

I'm not a customer any more
Healthcare, eh?

Related Posts

Delete or read?

This week I attended a Data Visualization workshop presented by the Advanced Media Center at UC Berkeley. Every year I set at least one professional development goal; this year it’s learning how to better communicate visually.

Part of the class included other resources, which led me to Nathan Yau’s website. One of the articles on the front page of his site is titled “Email Deletion Flow Chart.” Well, of course I had to read the post.

Read More

February 2017: The Month In Email

Happy March!

As always, I blogged about best practices with subscriptions, and shared a great example of subscription transparency that I received from The Guardian. I also wrote about what happens to the small pool of people who fail to complete a confirmed opt-in (or double opt-in) subscription process. While there are many reasons that someone might not complete that process, ultimately that person has not given permission to receive email, and marketers need to respect that. I revisited an older post on permission which is still entirely relevant.
Speaking of relevance, I wrote about seed lists, which can be useful, but — like all monitoring tools — should not be treated as infallible, just as part of a larger set of information we use to assess deliverability. Spamtraps are also valuable in that larger set of tools, and I looked at some of the myths and truths about how ISPs use them. I also shared some thoughts from an industry veteran on Gmail filtering.
On the topic of industry veterans, myths and truths, I looked at the “little bit right, little bit wrong” set of opinions in the world of email. It’s interesting to see the kinds of proclamations people make and how those line up against what we see in the world.
We attended M3AAWG, which is always a wonderful opportunity for us to catch up with smart people and look at the larger email ecosystem and how important our work on messaging infrastructure and policy really is. I was glad to see the 2017 Mary Litynski Award go to Mick Moran of Interpol for his tireless work fighting abuse and the exploitation of children online. I also wrote about how people keep wanting to quote ISP representatives on policy issues, and the origin of “Barry” as ISP spokesperson (we should really add “Betty” too…)
Steve took a turn as our guest columnist for “Ask Laura” this month with a terrific post on why ESPs need so many IP addresses. As always, we’d love to get more questions on all things email — please get in touch!

Read More

CASL Private Right of Action Delayed

Today the Canadian Government announced they were suspending the provision that allows individuals to sue marketers for violations of CASL.
Under these provisions, individual Canadian consumers had a private right of action. Any Canadian could sue any company that sent mail violating the law. This part of the law upset many senders and marketers. I’m sure many are relieved at this delay in enforcement.
 
This delay has no effect on the other major CASL provision with a July 1, 2017 deadline.
On July 1 a 3 year waiver on implied consent collected prior to CASL will end. What does that mean? Implied consent is just what it sounds like. Under certain conditions, senders can assume they have legal consent to mail the recipient. These conditions are spelled out in Section 10(9) of the law. Implied consent expires after 2 years. However, companies were granted a 3 year waiver on this provision for email addresses collected prior to July 1, 2014.
The waiver allowed senders to continue mailing addresses with implied consent even after the 2 year expiration.  This was to allow companies time to convert implied consent into express consent as to not lose recipients. There are about 3 weeks left for senders to get explicit permission to continue mailing addresses collected prior to July 1, 2014.
Additionally, as of July 1, 2017 CASL requires a parliamentary committee to review the law and its operation over the last 3 years.

Many senders are thrilled with the indefinite suspension of the PRA. It was, I think, one of the parts of the law that worried people the most. Allowing any citizen to sue someone who sent them mail they thought violated CASL? That concept struck fear into the hearts of many a legitimate marketer. I was never quite so sure it was going to be as bad as some thought.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to sit in a conference session with an individual from the Canadian government. They explained that there were significant barriers to individuals suing senders. Plaintiffs must file in provincial courts, not local ones. Second, defendants couldn’t be under investigation by the CRTC and a PRA at the same time. The presenter implied that CRTC had priority over any joint defendant. Finally, the plaintiff must prove actual damages. This is difficult for defendants that use a freemail provider like Gmail. There aren’t really damages in that case.
The overall gist of the session was that PRA in Canada was not that simple. Individuals wanting to sue had some bigger hoops to jump through than just filing something in small claims court. Nevertheless, I’m sure that many senders are relieved to hear the PRA is indefinitely suspended.

Read More