B2B mail and compliance failures

This morning I got an email to a tagged address. The tag matched the company so it’s very likely I did actually sign up. Digging back through my mailbox, I see one previous email to that account – back in 2008.

2008.

One email.

Who knows why I signed up and gave them an email address. Maybe I made a comment on their website. Or perhaps I signed up while investigating something for a client. I certainly don’t know. Given there is one email, I clearly unsubscribed.

If the address hadn’t been tagged, I would have assumed it was just another giant company purchasing addresses and sending out spam. In fact, it’s quite possible that many of the subscribers thought that this was simply spam. One interesting thing, though, is this is primarily B2B mail. It’s very unlikely that their ESPs monitoring saw anything unusual with the mailing. And if they did, it’s possible there’s not enough evidence the customer is violating the AUP.

Monitoring B2B deliverability it a challenge in any situation. Most of the ways ESPs monitor customers delivery don’t work in a B2B context. There aren’t FBLs for business domains. The business user sometimes does have a “this is spam” button and that data is used to tune filters. Sometimes the filters are the individual bayesian filters built into the mail client. Other times, the filters feed back to the filter maintainer and affect the mail coming into the business and other users of the filter. That data isn’t sent by FBL to the sender.

What does this mean? It means that how compliance monitors and identifies spam doesn’t work very well in when their customers are focused on the B2B market. Senders in the B2B space think they don’t have to actually get permission before they send. As compliance we’ve enforced that because their complaints are low. The complaints are low not because people don’t want the mail, but because there’s no way to get complaints from B2B mail.

Lack of negative feedback doesn’t mean the mail is good. It just means there’s no pathway for the feedback. Mail sent to lists of purchased email addresses, or addresses harvested off LinkedIn may not have high complaint rates or high bounce rates. But that doesn’t make the mail good, or wanted.

The remedy for B2B spam is blocking. B2B mailers don’t get the ability to tune their mail based on engagement or other factors like they can with B2C. Send B2B spam, get blocked.

Related Posts

If I can't tell, it's spam

Judging by the amount of B2B spams I’ve gotten this past week, a number of businesses got bright, shiny new email programs for Christmas. “Like to set up a call with you…” “Just need 10 minutes of your time to explore…” “Love to jump on a call and tell you about our product…”
That’s just the mail that comes into my personal address. There’s also a raft of mail coming into our contact address. The majority of those are trying to sell me FB or Twitter followers, although Instagram is rising in the ranks. Some of those messages are kinda funny, though. They try so hard to pretend there’s a real person who really did look at our website and who really has a comment.
Most of the time it’s pretty obvious that it’s not from a human. But every once in a while a message comes in that might be from a real person. I’ve finally decided that if I have any question if a message was written by a human or a bot, it will be treated as written by a bot.
Unfair? Maybe. But I’m a small business owner and a consultant; I don’t have tons of spare time to sit around letting folks pitch me on their business. I don’t think I’m actually that unusual when it comes to entrepreneurs. We’re busy, we don’t like distractions and we go out and search for the things we actually do need.

Read More

Social media connections are not opt-ins

It seems silly to have to say this, but connecting on social media is not permission to add an address to your newsletter or mailing list or prospecting list or spam list. Back in 2016, I wrote:

Read More

The cycle goes on

Monday I published a blog post about the ongoing B2B spam and how annoying it is. I get so many of these they’re becoming an actual problem. 3, 4, 5 a day. And then there’s the ongoing “drip” messages at 4, 6, 8, 12 days. It is getting out of control. It’s spam. It’s annoying. And most of it’s breaking the law.
But, I can also use it as blog (and twitter!) fodder.

Read More