Chip@FCS
Hey
to all, and Happy New year -
My good buddy, Paul Myers, sent me this today, and I thought you could get some nuggets out of his opinion on the Can-Spam Act. It adds another bit of wisdom and flavor to the Attorney's side of things, but from a marketer's standpoint ...
Here is is for you ... straight from Paul ...
"CAN-SPAM Craziness" by Paul Myers
========================
The good folks at MarketingSherpa.com have an interesting
interpretation of the new CAN-SPAM Act.
The gist of it is that if you run a promotion for a product in
your newsletter and people unsubscribe, you need to share
those addresses with the merchant. The merchant is then
supposed to make sure that neither they nor anyone else sends
promotions about their products to these people.
This type of list is called a suppression file.
You can read Anne Holland's article on the idea here:
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2556
I have some strong disagreements with much of the
interpretation of the Act that's outlined in that article.
This is very unusual, actually. Normally, if I disagree with
Anne Holland on anything, I question myself first. (She's one
very sharp individual indeed.)
However, I've discussed this informally with several lawyers
who are familiar with the act, and they are pretty much of the
same opinion as I am on this one.
Note that this doesn't make any of what I'm saying legal
advice. You need to talk to a lawyer for that, and I ain't
one.
The specifics are always what gets you...
Besides, the fact that some people agree with me doesn't
necessarily mean we're right.
Don't you just hate that?
....
A large part of the confusion stems from the same old bugaboo
that's haunted previous attempts to regulate the net. It's
simply not your father's direct marketing medium.
Still, any requirement that publishers pass along
unsubscribes, for any reason, is a Bad Idea, for a veritable
plethora* of reasons.
* Plethora: From the Latin for "Whopping great bunch."
There are security and privacy considerations.
There are accuracy issues.
Most importantly, there are just too many reasons that people
unsubscribe from things!
If this becomes public policy, a whole lot of people are going
to get their knickers in a plethora, let me tell you!
....
I've been doing this long enough (7 years exactly one month
ago) to know that people unsubscribe for various reasons, many
of them having little to do with content. Most of the time,
it's a matter of not having enough time for all the
publications one receives.
Consider some other common situations:
In several issues I've discussed SpamCop. That's a commercial
service. If someone unsubscribes because I said something
negative about SpamCop, should I send Julian the unsubscribes?
Should he then be forced to spread those addresses around to
anyone that might want to promote him?
Can you say "Irony?" Can you say "Sabotage your competition?"
Ah knew you could.
People don't read every issue as soon as it drops into their
mailbox, no matter how much I'd like that to be the case.
Unsubscribes can come in from issues that are literally months
old. (I still get occasional unsubscribes to an address that
hasn't been used for well over a year.)
How does one know what merchants to give those unsubscribes?
What if you mention 4 or 5 products in a review issue?
Follow this idea through to its logical conclusion...
Unsubscribe requests are more likely to be due to frequency of
publication or a disagreement with editorial content than
anything related to products that might be mentioned.
No-one stays subscribed forever to everything they ever
request. We prune our subscriptions all the time.
Various issues will contain references, over time, to pretty
much every decent product in the market.
The cascade effect of such a policy would eventually put
nearly everyone in a given market in nearly every suppression
list in that market. The only products that would ever get
mentioned would be those of the publisher of the list the
mention is sent to.
No special deals. No reviews. No considered advice from
experienced people on what to use and what to avoid.
And this doesn't even consider the bizarre implications for
reprint rights products!
Or how 'bout the privacy policies of publishers who promise
not to share their subscribers' addresses with others.
This whole concept is a mess of bachelor-pad proportions!
....
I'm quite uncomfortable with passing along email addresses of
subscribers for any reason at all. I simply will not do it
without a demand from law enforcement personnel, even if the
purpose is supposedly to protect you from other legitimate
publishers who might mention the same product I mentioned in
some issue.
So, I've changed the privacy policy for TalkBiz News to take
this into account, no matter how unlikely I think it is to
become actual public policy.
The new privacy policy, as it concerns this issue, is:
By subscribing to this publication and/or remaining
subscribed after the posting and announcement of this
policy, you agree that I am not to give out your address
for any reason, ***specifically including your having
unsubscribed.***
The only exception, aside from a request from law
enforcement personnel, would be if I sold the newsletter.
In such a case (very unlikely) I would not keep your email
address or mail to it again unless you had subscribed to
another publication I produce, and the new publisher would
have to agree to continue operation under the terms in
effect at the time of the sale.
In short, you'd keep getting just the one newsletter,
on the same topic. Nothing would change except the person
or company that produced the thing.
You also understand that considered and objective product
endorsements and reviews are a useful and essential tool
for any growing business, and are thus part of the content
of the subscription you've requested, regardless of
whether they contain affiliate links or not. (Many don't,
as you know if you've been subscribed for long.)
If you're concerned about this as a potential problem, you
might want to adopt that language (or use it as is) for your
own publications.
Note that I'm still not a lawyer, so use it at your own risk.
I'm gonna use it.
I am NOT going to start spreading unsubscribes around.
I'll close up shop first.
Ain't it scary that I have to resort to legalistic BS to AVOID
having to give your email address out?
FUURFU.
(That's ROT-13 for "Sheesh!," for you youngsters.)
"Yeah. Sure, SpamBoy!"
====================
Alternatively titled "Still More "CAN-SPAM Craziness."
I got this earlier today. The second bizarre attempt at
getting around CAN-SPAM by the Bulker Brats. (You can read
about the first at
(http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php).
....
"It is illegal to put tomatoes in clam chowder in
Massachusetts."
The Primary Purpose of this Email is to Deliver You a
"Crazy USA State Law of the Week" - The Secondary Purpose
of this Email is to Let You Know:
Click Here to Email Advertise Your Web Site to 1,850,000
0PT-IN Email Addresses for FREE!
If You Meet the Criteria of Being A Non-Profit
Organization That Helps People Defend Themselves From
Unfair State Laws. Once at Our Web Site, Mail Us With
Your Non-Profit Organization Information & We Will
Provide Details on How to Receive Your Emailing.
Unsubscribe From Our "Crazy USA State Law of the Week"
Email List
DISCLAIMER: This is Not a Commercial Email Message and is
Exempt From Guidelines Outlined in US Code S.877 The
Primary Purpose of this Email is Not a Commercial
Advertisement or Promotion of a Commercial Product or
Service. The Secondary Purpose of this Email is a
Non-Commercial
....
Yeah. Like a judge isn't going to see through that.
How stupid do these people think we are?
Oh yeah. They're spammers.
They're "projecting."
....
Until next issue. Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!
Paul
-----===(*)===-----
Feel free to pass this issue along, as long as you forward it
in full. Give folks a chance to sign up for themselves.
To subscribe to TalkBiz News, send an email to
mailto:subscribe@talkbiz.com
============================
Well - there you have it. "Myers' Wisdom and Humor" all wrapped up in one package. Hope it gives you another way to interpret some of this stuff flying all around these days ...
Hope 2004 is your best year ever!
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) Chip@FirstContactSecrets.com
My good buddy, Paul Myers, sent me this today, and I thought you could get some nuggets out of his opinion on the Can-Spam Act. It adds another bit of wisdom and flavor to the Attorney's side of things, but from a marketer's standpoint ...
Here is is for you ... straight from Paul ...
"CAN-SPAM Craziness" by Paul Myers
========================
The good folks at MarketingSherpa.com have an interesting
interpretation of the new CAN-SPAM Act.
The gist of it is that if you run a promotion for a product in
your newsletter and people unsubscribe, you need to share
those addresses with the merchant. The merchant is then
supposed to make sure that neither they nor anyone else sends
promotions about their products to these people.
This type of list is called a suppression file.
You can read Anne Holland's article on the idea here:
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2556
I have some strong disagreements with much of the
interpretation of the Act that's outlined in that article.
This is very unusual, actually. Normally, if I disagree with
Anne Holland on anything, I question myself first. (She's one
very sharp individual indeed.)
However, I've discussed this informally with several lawyers
who are familiar with the act, and they are pretty much of the
same opinion as I am on this one.
Note that this doesn't make any of what I'm saying legal
advice. You need to talk to a lawyer for that, and I ain't
one.
The specifics are always what gets you...
Besides, the fact that some people agree with me doesn't
necessarily mean we're right.
Don't you just hate that?
....
A large part of the confusion stems from the same old bugaboo
that's haunted previous attempts to regulate the net. It's
simply not your father's direct marketing medium.
Still, any requirement that publishers pass along
unsubscribes, for any reason, is a Bad Idea, for a veritable
plethora* of reasons.
* Plethora: From the Latin for "Whopping great bunch."
There are security and privacy considerations.
There are accuracy issues.
Most importantly, there are just too many reasons that people
unsubscribe from things!
If this becomes public policy, a whole lot of people are going
to get their knickers in a plethora, let me tell you!
....
I've been doing this long enough (7 years exactly one month
ago) to know that people unsubscribe for various reasons, many
of them having little to do with content. Most of the time,
it's a matter of not having enough time for all the
publications one receives.
Consider some other common situations:
In several issues I've discussed SpamCop. That's a commercial
service. If someone unsubscribes because I said something
negative about SpamCop, should I send Julian the unsubscribes?
Should he then be forced to spread those addresses around to
anyone that might want to promote him?
Can you say "Irony?" Can you say "Sabotage your competition?"
Ah knew you could.
People don't read every issue as soon as it drops into their
mailbox, no matter how much I'd like that to be the case.
Unsubscribes can come in from issues that are literally months
old. (I still get occasional unsubscribes to an address that
hasn't been used for well over a year.)
How does one know what merchants to give those unsubscribes?
What if you mention 4 or 5 products in a review issue?
Follow this idea through to its logical conclusion...
Unsubscribe requests are more likely to be due to frequency of
publication or a disagreement with editorial content than
anything related to products that might be mentioned.
No-one stays subscribed forever to everything they ever
request. We prune our subscriptions all the time.
Various issues will contain references, over time, to pretty
much every decent product in the market.
The cascade effect of such a policy would eventually put
nearly everyone in a given market in nearly every suppression
list in that market. The only products that would ever get
mentioned would be those of the publisher of the list the
mention is sent to.
No special deals. No reviews. No considered advice from
experienced people on what to use and what to avoid.
And this doesn't even consider the bizarre implications for
reprint rights products!
Or how 'bout the privacy policies of publishers who promise
not to share their subscribers' addresses with others.
This whole concept is a mess of bachelor-pad proportions!
....
I'm quite uncomfortable with passing along email addresses of
subscribers for any reason at all. I simply will not do it
without a demand from law enforcement personnel, even if the
purpose is supposedly to protect you from other legitimate
publishers who might mention the same product I mentioned in
some issue.
So, I've changed the privacy policy for TalkBiz News to take
this into account, no matter how unlikely I think it is to
become actual public policy.
The new privacy policy, as it concerns this issue, is:
By subscribing to this publication and/or remaining
subscribed after the posting and announcement of this
policy, you agree that I am not to give out your address
for any reason, ***specifically including your having
unsubscribed.***
The only exception, aside from a request from law
enforcement personnel, would be if I sold the newsletter.
In such a case (very unlikely) I would not keep your email
address or mail to it again unless you had subscribed to
another publication I produce, and the new publisher would
have to agree to continue operation under the terms in
effect at the time of the sale.
In short, you'd keep getting just the one newsletter,
on the same topic. Nothing would change except the person
or company that produced the thing.
You also understand that considered and objective product
endorsements and reviews are a useful and essential tool
for any growing business, and are thus part of the content
of the subscription you've requested, regardless of
whether they contain affiliate links or not. (Many don't,
as you know if you've been subscribed for long.)
If you're concerned about this as a potential problem, you
might want to adopt that language (or use it as is) for your
own publications.
Note that I'm still not a lawyer, so use it at your own risk.
I'm gonna use it.
I am NOT going to start spreading unsubscribes around.
I'll close up shop first.
Ain't it scary that I have to resort to legalistic BS to AVOID
having to give your email address out?
FUURFU.
(That's ROT-13 for "Sheesh!," for you youngsters.)
"Yeah. Sure, SpamBoy!"
====================
Alternatively titled "Still More "CAN-SPAM Craziness."
I got this earlier today. The second bizarre attempt at
getting around CAN-SPAM by the Bulker Brats. (You can read
about the first at
(http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php).
....
"It is illegal to put tomatoes in clam chowder in
Massachusetts."
The Primary Purpose of this Email is to Deliver You a
"Crazy USA State Law of the Week" - The Secondary Purpose
of this Email is to Let You Know:
Click Here to Email Advertise Your Web Site to 1,850,000
0PT-IN Email Addresses for FREE!
If You Meet the Criteria of Being A Non-Profit
Organization That Helps People Defend Themselves From
Unfair State Laws. Once at Our Web Site, Mail Us With
Your Non-Profit Organization Information & We Will
Provide Details on How to Receive Your Emailing.
Unsubscribe From Our "Crazy USA State Law of the Week"
Email List
DISCLAIMER: This is Not a Commercial Email Message and is
Exempt From Guidelines Outlined in US Code S.877 The
Primary Purpose of this Email is Not a Commercial
Advertisement or Promotion of a Commercial Product or
Service. The Secondary Purpose of this Email is a
Non-Commercial
....
Yeah. Like a judge isn't going to see through that.
How stupid do these people think we are?
Oh yeah. They're spammers.
They're "projecting."
....
Until next issue. Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!
Paul
-----===(*)===-----
Feel free to pass this issue along, as long as you forward it
in full. Give folks a chance to sign up for themselves.
To subscribe to TalkBiz News, send an email to
mailto:subscribe@talkbiz.com
============================
Well - there you have it. "Myers' Wisdom and Humor" all wrapped up in one package. Hope it gives you another way to interpret some of this stuff flying all around these days ...
Hope 2004 is your best year ever!
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) Chip@FirstContactSecrets.com