  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
mdr02125
Joined:
13 Jan 2004
Posts:
146
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:02 am
Post subject: CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking and Marlon Sanders
|
 |
|
I did a search on the board, but didn't find any thing, so I'll ask.
Has anyone heard about the potential rules the American FTC is considering ("CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking") requiring the use of suspension lists (like Do NOt Call lists) such that regardless of opt in or double opt in there would still be penalties for emailing to anyone on this "do not email list" -- so the mailing list has to be checked against the current (today's) version of the Do Not Email list before emailing?
It would not surprise me, as government has made many silly decisions --- however, I'm also wondering if Marlon Sanders isn't taking the interpretation of this too far as a neat self-promotion strategy.
| Quote: | | http://www.yousubscribed com/canspam/marlon.html |
Since this post is about spam I don't want to be told I'm spamming the forum so you'll have to insert the period in the above yourself. 
I don't know much about Marlon Sanders, so don't have much basis to know if he's reputable or how reputable.
On one hand most people won't bother to write/contact government agencies no matter how serious the matter (the extreme example being, many regretted not having done so, during and after the Holocaust)
So offering something to get people to do so is on one hand a good idea. On th eother hand it could be something that was going to be a freebie anyhow.... 
| Quote: | "Get My $200 Unified Field Marketing Discovery
FREE Just For Sending a Letter to the FTC" |
Thoughts anyone, about CAN SPAM ACT and/or Marlong Sanders? (No comments on Canned Spam--please leave that for Monty Python!) 
Mark
_________________
New England gardening with roses |
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
Phil CA
Joined:
19 Dec 2003
Posts:
1044
Location:
Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:50 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Mark,
You're receiving those email too eh! 
Here, I'll post one that I received.
A great marketing tactic OR it's open for everybody's thoughts and opinions 
http://www.infoprofitsvault.com/canspam/
All the best
Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marksezine
Joined:
29 Feb 2004
Posts:
21
Location:
Arlington Washington
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:51 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello Mark,
I received an email from Yanik Silver with the title,
Don’t let them STEAL your affiliate checks, that sent
you to the same web site that Phil was sent to. If it is just a
marketing ploy, it sure is getting peoples attention.
_________________
http://www.best-jeep-guide.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6326
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:01 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't think this is just a marketing ploy or alarmist talk. I think it's something that all affiliates should be extremely worried about.
The April 20 deadline for you to have your say is VERY close. Please take a few moments to read about this and have your say.
I have great respect for Anne Holland of MarketingSherpa. She spent hours grilling someone from the FTC on this, and refers to it as "supression list hell".
It looks as though the CAN SPAM Act is likely to be interpreted in a totally insane way that would make life extremely difficult for any affiliate who promotes affiliate products via a newsletter.
I also have great respect for Paul Myers, who has obviously taken a lot of time to write a very thoughtful piece on the subject, urging you to take action.
Paul Myers
http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php
Marlon Sanders
http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/marlon.html
Anne Holland
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2576
More views:
http://www.cashflowmarketing.com/newsletter/53.shtml
http://www.emediawire.com/printer.php?prid=109905
http://www.grokdotcom.com/canspam.htm
Here's the actual law, so you can check the wording for yourself:
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
If you use Marlon's link (not an affiliate link), you can get something for nothing for having your say.
I urge other affiliate merchants to warn their affiliates about this. Following Marlon's lead and giving people an incentive to take action is a bright idea.
But, really, we shouldn't need an incentive to do something to try to stop this insanity.
Still not convinced this is serious? Today I received an email from OfferWeb affiliate network, promoting something new.
OfferWeb said:
AFFILIATE NOTE: We require that all affiliates
suppress the adv. unsubs prior to mailing this
offer. Please contact [email address deleted]
for this list.
In other words, before sending out your newsletter, you're forced to check with OfferWeb that none of the people on its unsub list are subscribed to your newsletter.
What if you're promoting several affiliate products in your newsletter? Are you going to have to scrub your list against all the merchants' unsub lists? What a nightmare! How could the average affiliate cope with that?
No wonder Anne Holland calls this "suppression list hell' - and it's happening already.
The deadline to try to stop it is April 20. Please have your say. Be polite. You want to be taken seriously.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Tanny
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
1324
Location:
Gainesville Florida USA
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:19 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
In the short term, I agree with Allan and his very
informative post.
In the longer term, imho, it might be better if the
current email system went ahead and completed it's descent in
to collapse. Let's get it over with.
Email was designed on an open mailbox paradigm back in
the days when only college professors, research
scientists, military types, and other responsible
people used email.
This model has proven itself unable to serve the
general public, resulting in the kind of insanities we
are discussing today. The open mail box model is
analogous to leaving your front door wide open all day
while you are at work, and then chasing the criminals
and nosy neighbors out when you arrive home.
White listing (or whatever term you prefer) is a closed
mail box system, that is analogous to having a lock on
the front door of your house.
This system is already in use by many, but it can't get
wide acceptance because we have all become too used to
the original design of the email system and aren't
flexible enough to give up it's advantages.
We can fix CanSpam perhaps but it won't change the fact
that we are losing our audience because we haven't
given them real control over their own mailboxes.
That's what they are trying to obtain by the goofy
provisions being discussed here.
Our readers aren't going to change to a truly workable
email system until we've all finally given up on this
one.
Imho, as an old email biz guy...
_________________
Free Forum And Ezine Hosting
http://Engage-Engine.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
Joined:
12 Jul 2003
Posts:
764
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:31 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Allan,
If I understand this correctly, this could have a significant impact on Clickbank.
Suppose you sell an ebook via Clickbank. You send an email to Joe that promotes the ebook along with providing other information. Joe elects to opt-out of your email subscription.
I sign up as your affiliate at Clickbank - without your ever knowing it - and then send Joe an email that includes, among other things, an offer for your ebook.
Has someone broken the law? (Assuming this proposal becomes law)
Bobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
Joined:
12 Jul 2003
Posts:
764
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:38 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| marksezine wrote: | | I received an email from Yanik Silver with the title... |
I got that same email and my initial reaction was this was just another marketing ploy/hype. Jim Daniels, who has some type of relationship with Yanik Silver does the same type thing.
I don't recall the one from Marlon Sanders - but I may have overlooked that one thinking it was hype also.
I guess this shows that you can overdo the ploys & hype in your message content and subject lines to the point that when something important needs to be communicated, you don't have the credibility to get the message out. The old "boy who cried wolf" scenario.
My kudos to Allan for sticking to his email format. Sure he sells things as an affiliate, but he gives good information in each issue. It's not just another thinly disguised effort to see how many sales the sender can make from one email message that some marketers send out.
Bobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marksezine
Joined:
29 Feb 2004
Posts:
21
Location:
Arlington Washington
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:15 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello Everyone,
After doing some more research and checking out the FTC web site, I found that this is for real and should be taken very serious. I encourage everyone to at least send an email to the FTC as soon as possible. Just use one of the links that Allan has provided and do this today. Thank you.
_________________
http://www.best-jeep-guide.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:02 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Yes I think it is serious, because what is going on with spam is serious. It that if someone is credible it should not cost others for their way of life. If I need something I will find it. I read the bill and I hear a lot of seculation, what I see in this bill is credible and there is room for proper judgement. I think we can trust this one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timothy Warnock
Joined:
08 Aug 2003
Posts:
205
Location:
Assisi, Italy
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:28 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello Everyone,
This issue IS serious.
I already sent in my letter to the FTC, and I want to share with you what Michel Fortin wrote to me because it is a VERY easy step by step process to help you send your letter:
----------
Dear friends,
My friend Marlon called me with an important request, which I'm passing along to you. We need your support. The deadline is April 20th to submit your comments to the FTC on the CAN-SPAM ruling specifically regarding "supression lists," as they are detrimental to businesses, and especially consumers and their privacy -- which is the very thing CAN-SPAM is supposed to protect in the first place.
If you're in another country and think you're immune, think again.
I'm in Canada, and my letter went out yesterday afternoon.
Here's why: I recently wrote the salesletter copy for Shawn Casey at InternetLawCompliance.com, which deals with CAN-SPAM, too. And I did quite a bit of research for the copy.
Here's what I found: any email sent from, to and through the U.S. is affected by CAN-SPAM. Which means 99.9% of Internet marketers and online businesses. Even a personal email with a signature file with a URL is enforceable under the Act!
And "supression lists" are detrimental to businesses, and especially consumers and their privacy
(Think about this ... Can you imagine being forced to email the personal contact information and email address of your subscribers who opted out to ALL the Internet marketers, affiliate marketers and service/product providers you advertise with? To me, as a subscriber, it's SCARY.)
Here's a pre-written form letter:
http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/
Thanks.
Michel Fortin
----------
Do your part - just follow the link and detailed instructions that Michel offers.
All the best,
Tim
_________________
Timothy Warnock
Copywriter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Tanny
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
1324
Location:
Gainesville Florida USA
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:04 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, somebody should be a contrarian to this pep rally so we don't all fall victim to groupthink. No self respecting spam discussion can exist without some controversy.
Spam may be the most universal, and most passionate, topic on the Internet. It's been discussed with unrelenting fevor for 10 years in 10,000 forums. The entire planet, minus a few criminal jerks, are united in opposition to spam. Passionate volunteers work the trenches late in to the night all over the globe.
Billons of dollars, and some of our best minds, in some of the biggest companies, have been tasked against spam for more than a decade. Now the government is bumbling in to the struggle.
What is the result of all this effort and consensus, specifically in regards to the needs of our ebusiness community?
Email delivery of business communications is ever more complicated and ever less reliable. Right?
Our publications, when they arrive at all, continue to sit right along side mountains of inane filth in our readers inboxes. Right?
Is continuing to apply super glue and duct tape patches to this failed open mailbox, blacklist based system really the best way to get serious about the future of email?
How about a judo approach, where we channel the momentum of the enemy against himself?
Do nothing about spam and let it kill this flawed system that the spammers depend on. Then the ground will be ripe for building a consensus around a system where users have control over, and responsiblity for, their own inboxes.
No, this won't be perfect either. But it's got to be better than another 10 years of the same old failed approach.
_________________
Free Forum And Ezine Hosting
http://Engage-Engine.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil CA
Joined:
19 Dec 2003
Posts:
1044
Location:
Canada
|
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:25 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I respect everybody's concerns on this very important issue.
But, just like many other very important debatable issues...
Technologies, problems etc., good and bad changes will and do happen.
Problems evolve into great solutions.
That is how the internet revolution, or "webolution" will continue to evolve and expand giving us solutions for much more than email.
Already, new technologies have started...
Like Marketing Sherpa's Free Marketer's Desktop Resource Center
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2630
Cory Rudl's http://www.marketingtips.com/desktop/private/
and much, much more to come.
All the best
Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lennart Stjern
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:56 am
Post subject: spamming law in USA
|
|
|
Can the US authorities reach anyone outside the US? I for instance Associate Programs, based in Australia, sends what is considered "spam" in USA, can the US legal systeme reach you?
Best greetings
Lennart Stjern, Sweden |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robertb
Joined:
09 Aug 2003
Posts:
1837
Location:
Columbus, OH
|
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:22 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I suppose if you're promoting a US based product then can contact the merchant and cease the relationship.
_________________
Robert
Instant Site Comments - Allow Visitors to Comment On Your Content!
EbookNiches.com - 4 PLR Ebook Packages Each Month
Learn About DropShipping |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Glube
Joined:
17 Apr 2004
Posts:
28
Location:
Toronto, Canada
|
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:50 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi all,
My name is John Glube. I am new to this forum, although not new to the world of forums.
So, first off, hello to all.
On the question of the application of the Can Spam Act of 2003:
Lennart Stjern from Sweden writes:
| Quote: | | Can the US authorities reach anyone outside the US? I for instance Associate Programs, based in Australia, sends what is considered "spam" in USA, can the US legal systeme reach you? |
The Act has application to all those who send marketing messages to US consumers. It is specifically written this way and from a lengthy conversation I had with a staff attorney with the FTC in February, 2004 who is handling the file, she confirmed my existing understanding that it will be enforced this way.
How? At least in the case of Canada, Australia and the United States there are existing reciprocal agreements to share information on cross-border fraud cases.
The sending of a commercial email message or transactional or relationship message (these are defined terms under the Act) in contravention of the specific prohibitions contained in the Act is deemed an unfair trade practice.
This allows the appropriate regulatory agency in the US to pursue civil and in some cases criminal prosecution against the offender.
It also allows the authorites in Canada and Australia to do the same under the appropriate legislation.
So, for example let's say I sent an email message to a US consumer, which had false header information, a deceptive subject line, was sent after the person had requested to be removed; this would be an unfair trade practice under US law.
Assuming for the sake of discussion someone complained and the FTC determined it was appropriate to bring a case after reviewing the evidence; a case would be brought against me in US District Federal Court.
Further to the agreements I referenced, the Canadian courts would honor and enforce any judgment entered against me in the US Courts. (The same is essentially the case with Australia.)
As to the whole issue, Allen writes:
| Quote: | | I don't think this is just a marketing ploy or alarmist talk. I think it's something that all affiliates should be extremely worried about. |
Without going through a very long saga, let me simply say the short answer is yes, this is one of a number of serious issues with the Act and is especially troubling for publishers of affirmative consent e-publications.
(The basis for my position? Significant independent research on my part involving this whole issue since October, 2003. Publication of four lengthy articles (each article being about 15 pages in length.) Lengthy discussions with people who have been publishing for many years. Two lengthy interviews with one of the staff attorneys with the FTC responsible for the implementation of the Can Spam Act. Work on a detailed and lengthy submission to the FTC filed on March 27, 2004 by the International Council of Online Professionals.)
When I write "affirmative consent content based newsletters," I mean:
* Content based publications, where the subscriber has received notice of the nature of the content to be received prior to subscribing, including advertising were appropriate.
* The notice has been given in accordance with the material disclosure requirements under the Truth in Advertising rules as written by the FTC.
What is the fundamental problem with the mandated opt-out regime, or as some have called it suppression lists for affiliates?
To comply with the regime and deliver up his or her opt-outs to merchants, the e-publisher is breaking a promise.
The promise to hold in confidence the subscriber's contact information. This is a promise which survives the individual unsubscribing from the list.
(All responsible online publishers understand you respect the privacy of your subscribers.)
This problem is worse for those of us who reside in Canada and EU and are subject to data privacy laws.
How? Under Canadian and EU law, I can't release a subscriber's information to a 3rd party without his or her prior consent.
At the same time US law is mandating that I release this information to the merchant. So, I go to the former subscriber and say, may I please.
Now, what is the likelihood of the consent being granted?
So, now I am stuck. Do I violate Canadian or US law?
Do I breach my word to my former subscriber? Absolutely not.
Do I stop marketing to US consumers?
Do I segregate my lists geographically?
Do I set up matters so my subscriber can give notice to the merchant who can in turn pass on the information to me? But then my subscriber has to trust the merchant to hold the information in confidence.
What is to prevent misuse of the information? A legal obligation as contained in the Act?
One scenario - A merchant has an unsubscribe list derived from all of his affiliates. An unscrupulous publisher goes to the merchant and says give me your unsubscribe list so I can scrub my list, because one of your affiliates wants to run an advertisement for your product to my list.
Think about the value of this information and how it could be misused and what damage it would do to the merchant and all the affiliates.
What about placing the unsubcribe information in the hands of a third party I don't really know who has just popped up over night. Sure.
What guarantees do I have the information will not be misused. I am based in Canada. The third party is based in the US. Forget it.
Our word as marketers is ultimately the only thing we really have.
I do not know about you, but I am not prepared to run risks given the nature of the import of the bond.
Bottom line? There are significant issues with the Act, including the need to comply with the mandated opt-out regime.
I urge people to familiarize themselves with the issues and should any of the issues have bearing upon your business, file a comment.
(It is likely too late in most cases to send a comment by FedEx unless you reside in the United States - or have a friend in the US - and ensure delivery prior to the deadline of April 20, 2004.)
I strongly suggest the comment be in your own words and explain how the issues you are concerned about will have a bearing on your business. Be specific.
The FTC needs this information to be able to "connect the dots."
Kind regards,
John
P.S. Allan - thank you for taking the time to raise the suppression issue with your mailing list.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
_________________
Check out the The Zen List Of Marketing Forums and while there subscribe today to the The Journal to keep up todate on developments affecting your online business.
Last edited by John Glube on Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
