  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ChipT
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:00 pm
Post subject: Paul Myers on Canned Spam
|
 |
|
Hey to all, and Happy New year -
I hope a few of you get to see this before it is relegated to the
"promote your non-mlm" section here. My buddy, Paul Myers, sent me
this today, and I thought you could get some nuggets out of his opinion
on the Can-Spam Act. I also posted an attorney's position on the
CS-Act here for you, too ... but alas, that post seems to have been
buried or disappeared.
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, I hope you enjoyed it. If anyone wants a free copy of the
attorney's position on the CS-Act, too, or a free copy of the
Affiliates ebook we just finished a couple of weeks ago, it's my
pleasure to give you a copy (and there is nothing to join or sign up
for to get either or both - regardless of what some others might have
you believe!)
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:35 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
When it comes to anything in life, one thing we must do is apply common sense. When it comes to laws in the U.S., the constitution requires the application of the premise of the "reasonable man."
Reasonable man (or woman as the case many be) is simply applying common sense. Read through the law, it isn't that overwhelming and there are a lot of resources now on the net giving step-by-step breakdowns of various points in the Law.
Not once did I see anything, in the Law, or in the discourse, that would require the sharing of unsubscribes, and that includes the updates I get from Bruce Safran ... as a matter of fact, here is the latest newsletter from Bruce Safran (an attorney in the U.S. with 30 years experience):
====start of article====
| Quote: | The Legaleaze Letter?
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:
1. The act does not prohibit the sending of non-solicited commercial e-mail.
2. 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:
1. An accurate Name and E-mail address in the FROM LINE
2. A subject line accurately representing the content of the body of your email.
3. An actual physical mailing address in the body
4. A "clear and conspicuous" notice in the SUBJECT LINE that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.
5. 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
The Legal Stuff
Copyright ? 2002-2004 Lawvest Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
Any of the articles may be distributed freely, as long as the entire article, including links and the following resource box are unchanged.
-Resource Box-
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 of article====
Wally, the above information has no affiliate links. All info provided from ====start of article==== to ====end of article==== is required per his newsletter.
Hope this clarifies that there is no need to panic in the U.S., unless of course you follow non-optin email marketing 
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
  |
|
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 4:42 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I thought the law President Bush signed and the CAN SPAM act were two different things? Not sure but I think I heard this somewhere, or maybe it was a California spam law, or maybe I have no idea what I am talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 5:08 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
CAN Spam is the Federal Law that Pres. Bush signed  ...
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| 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
