The "law" regardng B-2-B email

Occasionally I've seen posts on this group advising people that their email
or fax practices are in violation of the law as it relates to spam. Can
anyone advise me where I might find the law in written form? It is
difficult to apply the law to someone else's situation without know all the
facts, likewise it is impossible to apply the law to my own fact situation
without access to the full text of the applicable law.

Our healthcare consulting group has a client list 600 - 1,000 organizations
long and our ACT! database contains over 20,000 contact files. For years
we have sent a newsletter to many of these people and at some point in the
past it morphed into an "email" newsletter. Since the metamorphosis new
contacts have been automatically added to the newsletter list without their
consent to being added Clearly, had anyone made a request to not receive
the newsletter we would have honored it but none has ever been made. Is it
now sufficient to have an "opt out" link on the newsletter or are there
other curative measures necessary?

I have a dilemma, I realize that a letter or phone call to all our
newsletter recipients inviting them to "opt in" would also be an opportunity
to make contact and remind them that we still exist and are willing to serve
them. On the other hand... the people with whom we work are very busy and
response rate is dismal even for phone calls. I would hate to drop most of
those email newletter recipients just because they failed to respond to our
"opt in" letter. Every time our newsletter goes out there is a huge
increase in the number of hits on our website. Of course, there is no hard
connection between the number of new consulting engagements and the
newsletter but we firmly believe it to be a factor.

Thanks,

God bless,

Dan Peak
dpeak@bradyinc.com

>On 13 May 2004 15:49:44 GMT, "D" <123@1234.com> wrote:

>Occasionally I've seen posts on this group advising people that their email
>or fax practices are in violation of the law as it relates to spam. Can
>anyone advise me where I might find the law in written form? It is
>difficult to apply the law to someone else's situation without know all the
>facts, likewise it is impossible to apply the law to my own fact situation
>without access to the full text of the applicable law.
>
>Our healthcare consulting group has a client list 600 - 1,000 organizations
>long and our ACT! database contains over 20,000 contact files. For years
>we have sent a newsletter to many of these people and at some point in the
>past it morphed into an "email" newsletter. Since the metamorphosis new
>contacts have been automatically added to the newsletter list without their
>consent to being added Clearly, had anyone made a request to not receive
>the newsletter we would have honored it but none has ever been made. Is it
>now sufficient to have an "opt out" link on the newsletter or are there
>other curative measures necessary?

I see no mention of country

so I'll assume US

The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emailers

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.htm
or the pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.pdf

be aware that is only the current "law"

more important for the legitimate use of commerical email is to be
very careful not to alienate your customer base, turning clients into
upset ex-customers if they "feel" you are abusing the relationship.

"D" <123@1234.com> wrote in message news:c805eo01ojh@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> Occasionally I've seen posts on this group advising people that their
email
> or fax practices are in violation of the law as it relates to spam. Can
> anyone advise me where I might find the law in written form? It is
> difficult to apply the law to someone else's situation without know all
the
> facts, likewise it is impossible to apply the law to my own fact situation
> without access to the full text of the applicable law.
>
> Our healthcare consulting group has a client list 600 - 1,000
organizations
> long and our ACT! database contains over 20,000 contact files. For years
> we have sent a newsletter to many of these people and at some point in the
> past it morphed into an "email" newsletter. Since the metamorphosis new
> contacts have been automatically added to the newsletter list without
their
> consent to being added

Then you're spamming them. The law is irrelevant. I don't care what my
relationship is with any company. If they send me email without my
permission, it's spam.

Clearly, had anyone made a request to not receive
> the newsletter we would have honored it but none has ever been made. Is
it
> now sufficient to have an "opt out" link on the newsletter or are there
> other curative measures necessary?

You should re-confirm all of them. If you do not have confirmations for your
subscribers, you're spamming. They might not opt-out, but your newsletter
may just be deleted upon receipt now.

>
> I have a dilemma, I realize that a letter or phone call to all our
> newsletter recipients inviting them to "opt in" would also be an
opportunity
> to make contact and remind them that we still exist and are willing to
serve
> them. On the other hand... the people with whom we work are very busy
and
> response rate is dismal even for phone calls. I would hate to drop most
of
> those email newletter recipients just because they failed to respond to
our
> "opt in" letter.

Whether you would hate to do that is irrelevant. You're spamming them now.

> Every time our newsletter goes out there is a huge
> increase in the number of hits on our website.

Is your newsletter in HTML format? Who tells you there are more hits?

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

That's right. And with most spam opt out options not realy working, but just a
gimik to see if the reciever is reading it, most people won't take the time to
opt out, but just delete the e-mail, and will have a lower oppinion of the
company sending the spam. And with most opt out options being a pain, it's
easyer to just put a block on all e-mail coming from that e-mail address.

Wayne Sallee


In article <c82s5i01cqu@enews2.newsguy.com>, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>
writes:

>"D" <123@1234.com> wrote in message news:c805eo01ojh@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Occasionally I've seen posts on this group advising people that their
>email
>> or fax practices are in violation of the law as it relates to spam. Can
>> anyone advise me where I might find the law in written form? It is
>> difficult to apply the law to someone else's situation without know all
>the
>> facts, likewise it is impossible to apply the law to my own fact situation
>> without access to the full text of the applicable law.
>>
>> Our healthcare consulting group has a client list 600 - 1,000
>organizations
>> long and our ACT! database contains over 20,000 contact files. For years
>> we have sent a newsletter to many of these people and at some point in the
>> past it morphed into an "email" newsletter. Since the metamorphosis new
>> contacts have been automatically added to the newsletter list without
>their
>> consent to being added
>
>Then you're spamming them. The law is irrelevant. I don't care what my
>relationship is with any company. If they send me email without my
>permission, it's spam.
>
> Clearly, had anyone made a request to not receive
>> the newsletter we would have honored it but none has ever been made. Is
>it
>> now sufficient to have an "opt out" link on the newsletter or are there
>> other curative measures necessary?
>
>You should re-confirm all of them. If you do not have confirmations for your
>subscribers, you're spamming. They might not opt-out, but your newsletter
>may just be deleted upon receipt now.
>
>>
>> I have a dilemma, I realize that a letter or phone call to all our
>> newsletter recipients inviting them to "opt in" would also be an
>opportunity
>> to make contact and remind them that we still exist and are willing to
>serve
>> them. On the other hand... the people with whom we work are very busy
>and
>> response rate is dismal even for phone calls. I would hate to drop most
>of
>> those email newletter recipients just because they failed to respond to
>our
>> "opt in" letter.
>
>Whether you would hate to do that is irrelevant. You're spamming them now.
>
>> Every time our newsletter goes out there is a huge
>> increase in the number of hits on our website.
>
>Is your newsletter in HTML format? Who tells you there are more hits?
>
>--
>McWebber
>"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
>that he's operating appropriately."
>Information Week, November 10, 2003
>

In article <caimgn0190n@enews3.newsguy.com>,
waynesallee@aol.com (Wayne Sallee) wrote:

> That's right. And with most spam opt out options not realy working, but just a
> gimik to see if the reciever is reading it, most people won't take the time to
> opt out, but just delete the e-mail, and will have a lower oppinion of the
> company sending the spam. And with most opt out options being a pain, it's
> easyer to just put a block on all e-mail coming from that e-mail address.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>
>
> In article <c82s5i01cqu@enews2.newsguy.com>, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>
> writes:
>
> >"D" <123@1234.com> wrote in message news:c805eo01ojh@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> Occasionally I've seen posts on this group advising people that their
> >email
> >> or fax practices are in violation of the law as it relates to spam. Can
> >> anyone advise me where I might find the law in written form? It is
> >> difficult to apply the law to someone else's situation without know all
> >the
> >> facts, likewise it is impossible to apply the law to my own fact situation
> >> without access to the full text of the applicable law.
> >>
> >> Our healthcare consulting group has a client list 600 - 1,000
> >organizations
> >> long and our ACT! database contains over 20,000 contact files. For years
> >> we have sent a newsletter to many of these people and at some point in the
> >> past it morphed into an "email" newsletter. Since the metamorphosis new
> >> contacts have been automatically added to the newsletter list without
> >their
> >> consent to being added
> >
> >Then you're spamming them. The law is irrelevant. I don't care what my
> >relationship is with any company. If they send me email without my
> >permission, it's spam.
> >
> > Clearly, had anyone made a request to not receive
> >> the newsletter we would have honored it but none has ever been made. Is
> >it
> >> now sufficient to have an "opt out" link on the newsletter or are there
> >> other curative measures necessary?
> >
> >You should re-confirm all of them. If you do not have confirmations for your
> >subscribers, you're spamming. They might not opt-out, but your newsletter
> >may just be deleted upon receipt now.
> >
> >>
> >> I have a dilemma, I realize that a letter or phone call to all our
> >> newsletter recipients inviting them to "opt in" would also be an
> >opportunity
> >> to make contact and remind them that we still exist and are willing to
> >serve
> >> them. On the other hand... the people with whom we work are very busy
> >and
> >> response rate is dismal even for phone calls. I would hate to drop most
> >of
> >> those email newletter recipients just because they failed to respond to
> >our
> >> "opt in" letter.
> >
> >Whether you would hate to do that is irrelevant. You're spamming them now.
> >
> >> Every time our newsletter goes out there is a huge
> >> increase in the number of hits on our website.
> >
> >Is your newsletter in HTML format? Who tells you there are more hits?
> >
> >--
> >McWebber
> >"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
> >that he's operating appropriately."
> >Information Week, November 10, 2003
> >

Just to add to this discussion, their is nothing in the Can Spam Act
that makes it illegal to send email to people who have not granted
permission. Of course, it is a best practice and not doing so has
other side effects that have mentioned in this strand. However, if your
email content is useful and not a blatant solicitation you can help
mitigate some of those side effects.

I have been discussing RSS feeds with clients who are frustrated by the
problems with sending email newsletters. I think RSS is a fantastic
option for using effective content to draw interested parties to your
site.

When it comes to using your house list, as in the example above, the
most important thing is to make sure that you have a valid opt-out
mechanism that unsubscribes users permanently from all emails you send.
Also, you may want to consider sending text emails that link through to
the complete article on a web page in order to avoid the problem of the
increasing difficulty of getting html email through to the inbox.

Doug Kneeland

douglas.kneeland@snet.net

"Doug Kneeland" <douglas.kneeland@snet.net> wrote in message
news:caj38c02ckb@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <caimgn0190n@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> waynesallee@aol.com (Wayne Sallee) wrote:
>
> > That's right. And with most spam opt out options not realy working, but
just a
> > gimik to see if the reciever is reading it, most people won't take the
time to
> > opt out, but just delete the e-mail, and will have a lower oppinion of
the
> > company sending the spam. And with most opt out options being a pain,
it's
> > easyer to just put a block on all e-mail coming from that e-mail
address.
> >
>
> Just to add to this discussion, their is nothing in the Can Spam Act
> that makes it illegal to send email to people who have not granted
> permission.

If your sole criteria in business practices is what's not illegal is OK to
do, then you have a moral compass that needs adjustment.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

In article <cakjmp01nv4@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:

> "Doug Kneeland" <douglas.kneeland@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:caj38c02ckb@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > In article <caimgn0190n@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> > waynesallee@aol.com (Wayne Sallee) wrote:
> >
> > > That's right. And with most spam opt out options not realy working, but
> just a
> > > gimik to see if the reciever is reading it, most people won't take the
> time to
> > > opt out, but just delete the e-mail, and will have a lower oppinion of
> the
> > > company sending the spam. And with most opt out options being a pain,
> it's
> > > easyer to just put a block on all e-mail coming from that e-mail
> address.
> > >
> >
> > Just to add to this discussion, their is nothing in the Can Spam Act
> > that makes it illegal to send email to people who have not granted
> > permission.
>
> If your sole criteria in business practices is what's not illegal is OK to
> do, then you have a moral compass that needs adjustment.

Moral Compass? There are a variety of ways to email market to addresses
that have not opted-in that are perfectly effective. It's all about the
content and whether you add value. Get off your high horse.

"Doug Kneeland" <douglas.kneeland@snet.net> wrote in message
news:caolk302rsm@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <cakjmp01nv4@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > "Doug Kneeland" <douglas.kneeland@snet.net> wrote in message
> > news:caj38c02ckb@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > In article <caimgn0190n@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> > > waynesallee@aol.com (Wayne Sallee) wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's right. And with most spam opt out options not realy working,
but
> > just a
> > > > gimik to see if the reciever is reading it, most people won't take
the
> > time to
> > > > opt out, but just delete the e-mail, and will have a lower oppinion
of
> > the
> > > > company sending the spam. And with most opt out options being a
pain,
> > it's
> > > > easyer to just put a block on all e-mail coming from that e-mail
> > address.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just to add to this discussion, their is nothing in the Can Spam Act
> > > that makes it illegal to send email to people who have not granted
> > > permission.
> >
> > If your sole criteria in business practices is what's not illegal is OK
to
> > do, then you have a moral compass that needs adjustment.
>
> Moral Compass? There are a variety of ways to email market to addresses
> that have not opted-in that are perfectly effective. It's all about the
> content and whether you add value. Get off your high horse.

No, it's not about content. It's about consent. Get off whatever you are on.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:34:04 +0000, McWebber wrote:

>
>>
>> Moral Compass? There are a variety of ways to email market to addresses
>> that have not opted-in that are perfectly effective. It's all about the
>> content and whether you add value. Get off your high horse.
>
> No, it's not about content. It's about consent. Get off whatever you are on.

If it was about 'consent', then there would be no TV commercials, no
magazine ads, no direct mailing, nothing.

In article <cat4un0cqb@enews2.newsguy.com>, Eric Handbury
<ehandbury@hotmail.com> writes:

>If it was about 'consent', then there would be no TV commercials, no
>magazine ads, no direct mailing, nothing.
>

Actualy people like having advertizements in magazines, so long as they look
like advertizements and are in proper places. Magazines provide a great place
to find sellers of the things you are looking for, and it's the advertizers
that pay the cost of magazines, otherwise the sticker price of the magazine
would be much higher.

And advertizements on TV, while most people try to ignore them, allow the TV
channels to come in for free.

Wayne Sallee