Chip@FCS
Hey to all -

Below is a portion of the newsletter my friend and fellow collaborator in First Contact Secrets, Attorney Bruce Safran, emailed me this AM concerning the new CAN-SPAM Act. Since this is a somewhat controversial subject right now, I hope Bruce's analysis of the CS-Act helps you understand if it applies to you or not.

**********

BEGIN SECTION


"Can Sp*am Uncanned -- The Real Story About The New Act"

As you may know, President Bush recently signed into law the Can Spam Act of 2003 (Public Law No. 108-187). The purpose of this new law in effect on January 1, 2004, is to cut down on the rising level of unsolicited commercial e-mail.

To do so, it imposes certain requirements for the delivery of commercial email and institutes certain penalties for failing to comply with such requirements. (You can read the new law in its entirety at http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html).

There has been a lot of talk, news, rumor, information (including misinformation) and opinion about the effects and implications on legitimate marketers and newsletter publishers of the Can Spam Act (The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act).

The result of all this attention has been to whip most of us into frenzy, creating an atmosphere of confusion and paranoia.


I WANT TO MAKE TWO VERY IMPORTANT POINTS:

I. The act does not prohibit the sending of non-solicited commercial e-mail.

II. The act only regulates the MANNER OF SENDING non-solicited commercial e-mail.

The most common question people ask me is, if I am a legitimate marketer or newsletter publisher and I e-mail my newsletter, and offers to a list of people who have subscribed; do I need to change any of my practices to conform to the new law?

My answer--- It depends on what you are doing now!

For most of us, the new law should have little or no effect on the way we do business.

That’s because most of us send out our e-mails to people who have asked us to send them. In other words, the person who receives our e-mails has requested that we send e-mails to them.

They may have requested our email from a third party, (for instance when we buy names), through a subscribe box on our web site or any one of several other means by which the recipient of our emails has requested or agreed to receive correspondence from us or on a particular subject.

Therefore, my simple answer is, unless you are sending “Non-Solicited” commercial e-mail to consumers, this act does not apply to you.

Here is how the act defines unsolicited or non-solicited:

Email that is:

· Sent to a person who has not specifically requested to receive communications from the sender and

· with whom the sender does not have a prior business or personal relationship, or

· to a person who has previously requested not to receive communications from the sender (i.e., has opted out).


Here are my recommendations to anyone sending emails in the course of their business.

· Make sure you put an accurate Name and E-mail address in the FROM LINE of your e-mail.

I use my name and not my company name. This way I create a brand in the marketplace. My from line reads “Bruce Safran” My address is, bruce@legalebiz.com.


· Make sure your subject line accurately represents the content of the body of your email.

My subject lines generally inform the recipient of the content of my e-mail. In addition, I will continue to be creative with my subject lines to strive for as high an open to sent ration as possible. To give you an example, some of the subject lines I have used in the past are David, I almost forgot or Judy, IMPORTANT AND URGENT.


· Make sure to include your actual physical mailing address in the body of every e-mail you send.

I will start including my office address at the bottom of every email.


· Make sure you are using and autoresponder service or other email program that has an easy one-click opt-out procedure for people who no longer wish to receive your e-mails.

There are many good services out there. I happen to use 1 Shopping Cart which is a comprehensive Merchant Services and Autoresponder solution.


· Let people know at the beginning of your email, that they are receiving it because they or someone on their behalf subscribed using their address.


· If you are sending unsolicited commercial email, identify it as an advertisement or solicitation in the subject line.


What about “Double Opt-In?”

Many people are now recommending changing to double opt-in when adding new subscribers as protection from the dreaded CAN SPAM ACT.

“Double opt-in” means:
After someone first subscribes you send him or her e-mail requesting he or she click on a link or send you back an email confirming his or her subscription.

IN MY OPINION, THIS IS OVERKILL!

I don’t, and at this time, have no intention to change to double opt-in.

TO RECAP

Every UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL must now contain:

I. An accurate Name and E-mail address in the FROM LINE

II. A subject line accurately representing the content of the body of your email.

III. An actual physical mailing address in the body

IV. A "clear and conspicuous" notice in the SUBJECT LINE that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.

V. An easy opt-out procedure for people who no longer wish to receive your e-mails.

And that folks, is the real story.

See you next time.

Bruce Safran
427 Yale Avenue
Suite 100
Claremont, CA 91711
909-398-1144

http://www.ippplan.com
http://www.legalebiz.com
http://www.autoweblaw.com
http://www.weblawclinic.com
http://www.askbrucesafran.com

"Bruce knows more about the legal, marketing and hands-on business aspects of Public Domain than anyone else I know. He provides incredibly valuable, cut-to-the-chase Insider Information on how you can do this yourself, quickly and profitably. His information is thorough and can put a lot of money in your pocket in a very short period of time."
— David Garfinkel CEO of DavidGarfinkel.com

Bruce Safran is an internationally known Attorney, with over 30 years experience. He specializes in Internet, Public Domain and securities law, and has helped thousands of online businesses become FTC compliant.

END SECTION

**********

Well, my friends - there you have it, straight from an attorney's wisdom. Hope it clarifies some things for you and you can see if you really need to change anything or not.

Happiest and Most Successful 2004 -

Chip Tarver
Author, "First Contact Secrets – Insider Tips Reveal How to Successfully Connect With the World's Master Marketers" at http://www.FirstContactSecrets.com (Get your own free eCourse on making excellent first contacts from my exit pop on the FCS site … because I’m willing to EARN your trust)

jason_ga
Great article Chip - thanks for posting it.

John Glube has also written a (IMHO) great article on the subject, where he does an in-depth analysis of the new law.

http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html

While everything for the most part is pretty straight forward, he does note a possible major problem for people running an affiliate program - the requirement to not send ads to someone who has opted out.

This may even mean that if one of your affiliates runs an ad for your product in newsletter A, and Bob unsubscribes from that newsletter, then another affiliate runs an ad in newsletter B (which Bob is also subscribed to), in theory you could get into trouble!

This isn't to say you will or won't - as John says, the law isn't clear on this point, and there needs to be some guidelines published to clarify this point. It would be crazy if this is the case, but since when has the law had to be reasonable? :(

Have a read of the article, and decide for yourself.

Cheers,
Jason

Chip@FCS
Hey, J -

Thanks for the compliment. And, yes, I saw what John posted based on another attorney's take on the new law ...

As I'm sure you''re already aware, many folks (and lots of attorneys) have different interpretations on things, especially laws like this one.

My buddy Paul Myers just sent me an email this AM, which talks about the goofy way some folks are saying that you now have to deal with unsubs. It's basically impractical and mostly impossible.

I just asked Paul if I could post it here but have not yet gotten an return email from him, so I'll hold off till I hear back from Paul.

I also have a little red flag that goes up in my head when I see an attorney post a scarey interpretation, and then want to sell a product that "answers the problem." Is it (1) necessary, (2) is it practical, or (3) is it just marketing?

Inquiring minds want to know ... ;-) ...

Hope 2004 is your best year ever, Jason!

Chip Tarver
<><
Author, "First Contact Secrets – Insider Tips Reveal How to Successfully Connect With the World's Master Marketers" at http://www.FirstContactSecrets.com (Get your own free eCourse on making excellent first contacts from my exit pop on the FCS site … because I’m willing to EARN your trust)



Originally posted by jason_ga
Great article Chip - thanks for posting it.

John Glube has also written a (IMHO) great article on the subject, where he does an in-depth analysis of the new law.

http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html

While everything for the most part is pretty straight forward, he does note a possible major problem for people running an affiliate program - the requirement to not send ads to someone who has opted out.

This may even mean that if one of your affiliates runs an ad for your product in newsletter A, and Bob unsubscribes from that newsletter, then another affiliate runs an ad in newsletter B (which Bob is also subscribed to), in theory you could get into trouble!

This isn't to say you will or won't - as John says, the law isn't clear on this point, and there needs to be some guidelines published to clarify this point. It would be crazy if this is the case, but since when has the law had to be reasonable? :(

Have a read of the article, and decide for yourself.

Cheers,
Jason

jason_ga
Originally posted by Chip@FCS
As I'm sure you''re already aware, many folks (and lots of attorneys) have different interpretations on things, especially laws like this one.
Oh, absolutely :) I guess that's why lawyers are paid so much - they can all argue with each other about which interpretation of the law is the 'correct' one!

I saw Paul's message (I wouldn't miss his newsletter for the world). I agree it would be a nightmare. If the law makers really did mean that affiliate managers needed to run a supression list, it would force most small business owners to close their affiliate program. I wouldn't expect that to be what the lawmakers intended (it would be stupid if it was!), but such intpretations can occur.

I also have a little red flag that goes up in my head when I see an attorney post a scarey interpretation, and then want to sell a product that "answers the problem." Is it (1) necessary, (2) is it practical, or (3) is it just marketing?
You too huh? :) John isn't trying to sell anything, so I'm willing to listen to what he has to say (and he shows all his reasoning, not just makes a statement like all the others), so you can see why he has come to that conclusion.

But there are a couple of people around going "you'll go to jail if you don't change what your doing... and to find out what to change, send $97 to..."

It makes sense from a maketing perspective (use fear to promote your product), but I sure don't like it!

Cheers,
Jason

Chip@FCS
Hey, J -

Thanks for your post. But, when I said that about "selling something," I was not talking about John ...

Best,

Chip
<><



Originally posted by jason_ga
Oh, absolutely :) I guess that's why lawyers are paid so much - they can all argue with each other about which interpretation of the law is the 'correct' one!

I saw Paul's message (I wouldn't miss his newsletter for the world). I agree it would be a nightmare. If the law makers really did mean that affiliate managers needed to run a supression list, it would force most small business owners to close their affiliate program. I wouldn't expect that to be what the lawmakers intended (it would be stupid if it was!), but such intpretations can occur.


You too huh? :) John isn't trying to sell anything, so I'm willing to listen to what he has to say (and he shows all his reasoning, not just makes a statement like all the others), so you can see why he has come to that conclusion.

But there are a couple of people around going "you'll go to jail if you don't change what your doing... and to find out what to change, send $97 to..."

It makes sense from a maketing perspective (use fear to promote your product), but I sure don't like it!

Cheers,
Jason

Copyright © InfoProfitsTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.