Replies

Actually, there are two separate major factions in this issue. True opt-in mailers and spammers. The campaign that was referenced in that email is being pushed by people who employ responsible opt-in practices. As in, the subscriber must actually request the email, knowing what they'll get before they sign up.

If you read the blog entry I wrote that's referenced in that email (http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php) you'll see that we're quite specific about that.

The concern in this case is about the damage that's going to be done if they apply rules that were intended to stop spam to publishers who don't engage in spamming.

The rules under discussion here will not do a thing to stop actual spam, by the way. They'll just drive the majority of free email publications in most market segments out of business.

For those who may wonder if I'm some sort of spam apologist... My definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. I don't care if it's commercial, religious, political, charitable, or a time traveller looking for parts for his Wayback Machine.

If it's bulk, and the list was compiled without the prior permission of the people on it, it's spam.

Paul Myers

PS: I think execution may be just a little harsh, but I've publicly supported the idea of jail time for spammers for 7 years.

As in, the subscriber must actually request the email, knowing what they'll get before they sign up.

If they're requesting that their information be on a suppressed list, then obviously they changed their mind, or what they were getting wasn't what they though they would get when they signed up.

"If one consumer tells one affiliate or merchant that they never want to hear about a particular product (brand) EVER again, then EVERY affiliate AND the merchant must remove that consumer from their list whenever advertising that product."

In either case, it seems to me that "responsible" marketers would embrace consumers who tell them they don't want to hear about a product or service, saving those marketers from directing their efforts at consumers who aren't interested in the products they're pushing.

The idea that this is somehow such a burden, especially when the marketer is using a service (e-mail) that the consumer has to pay to obtain, makes me wonder how legitimate these marketers are.