Slashdot Mirror
7 Ways to Be Mistaken for a Spammer
ancientribe writes "The "This is Spam" button popping up on many service providers' email services can be empowering for a user, but it can also be the kiss of death for a legitimate business that gets canned with a click of that button. Dark Reading has a story on seven common missteps that can lead to a case of mistaken spammmer identity for a legit business trying to send its marketing email, newsletters or other correspondence."
What I hate is that there is little room left on the internet for legitimate advertising. When the first spam messages went out back in the 90s, they didn't try to be as deceptive or fraudulent as they are today. People still hated them, but at least they were being more honest about their practices. Nowadays you have real spammers that are disruptive, invasive, fraudulent and don't care that they are these things. This is the real spam. However there are still a lot of people out there that think that every piece of marketing material whether its legitimate or not should be treated as spam and the person sending it should be hung out on a noose.
If people are going to have this opinion in a capatalistic society, then that's hypocrisy and I think they need to think a bit more about what they are doing. If these people think that advertising shouldn't have a place in our society then I think they should consider that maybe money doesn't either. Because we can't have both. Capitalism needs marketing,
When I put advertisements in my signature line, I try not to be invasive, fraudulent or deceptive. But yet people treat me like I'm hell incarnate. I think that's wrong.
sending email to people who tell you not to do it anymore makes you a spammer
Selling email addresses to other business, makes you a spammer.
Ingoring user email preferences makes you a spammer
Losing track of systems shows you are a fool
A two-fer both a spammer and a fool!
Poor coding shows you are a fool, in particular as this is an old old trick
"lie down with dogs wake up with fleas"
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I admit it, I to have purposefully signed up for commercial emails that I later got tired of receiving. Instead of unsubscribing which was difficult I simply hit the Spam button on gmail. Maybe marketters need to make unsubscribing a bit easier and they might not get caught up in service wide filters.
I once did an online order from Pizza Hut, and I've been stuck on their mailing list ever since. I did their unsubscribe spiel, and was aghast: they said it would take 6-8 weeks for me to get off their mailing list.
In this day and age of computers, 6-8 weeks to be removed off of their mailings is ridiculous. I'm not trying to buy a house here, I just don't want your correspondence.
Legit marketing emails? Just go RSS or make a web page. Let them come to you.
The only legitimate point is users using the "This is spam" button to unsubscribe to newletters they legitimately subscribed to. This isn't fair to an honest company. However, there are risks to advertising through newsletters, and this is one. As long as companies are informed of the risk, and can take steps to mitigate it, then its all fair, I suppose.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
All the mail i receive from companies that i have not requested, is from my point of view Spam, and therefore gets reported as spam. I fail to see why many companies still believe that they have some right to mail me their commercials.. if I'm interested, i find their webpage. / Mark
i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
Capitalism does not need marketing,
Without marketing, will I starve to death? No, of course not. I will seek to buy food.
Will I not have a car? No, of course not. I will seek a place to buy one.
I might not buy a pet rock, chia pet, or similar. Oh well. That's a gain for me.
We could really use more stuff like Consumer Reports, but funding is difficult.
A good start though: strict truth-in-advertising laws. Today it is considered "free speech" for a company to lie about their products, subject to very few limitations. If the soap gets whites whiter, there ought to be published research indicating so. If a product is "the best", it ought to be truly the best from the consumer's viewpoint in at least one normal and legitimate way.
#1. Since you're sending out HTML email anyway, why not put the unsubscribe button at the top of the message? If you're going to be funny and make it an "unsubscribe from this particular spam run" then you need to add a second button, again at the top of the message, that will unsubscribe the recipient from ALL of your mailings. ALL of them. Not most of them. Not some of them. Not everything except the ones the marketing department really wants to get out. ALL OF THEM.
... but that your subscription will end on (insert date) of this year UNLESS you click on the "continue my subscription for another year" button at the top of the message or copy this URL to your browser.
#2. If that's too much work for you, try an automatic opt-out program. Send a message once a month saying that you're still subscribed
I am not going to waste MY time trying to find where you've hidden the unsubscribe option.
Spammers often do not have an unsubscribe button/link (those that do usually collect the addresses). If I cannot INSTANTLY find the unsubscribe button then I'm going to treat you like a spammer.
Oh, and one other item - USE YOUR OWN FUCKING DOMAIN.
If I look at the headers and I see that you claim to be a@b.com but the sending server's IP is tied to c.com then I'm going to blacklist c.com as a spammer.
Okay, one last item, if I put the sending server's IP address into a browser and get a generic "unsubscribe" page, yeah, you're a spammer.
If I put c.com (from the above example) into a browser and you don't have a webpage, yeah, you're a spammer.
There is no such thing as "legitimate marketing". All commercial e-mail is Spam - hardly anyone actually *wants* it, and even people who do want some of the information provided in a marketing e-mail are invariably fed needless heaps of marketing spiel as well.
Yes, there are ethical guidelines that have been established, and there are people that follow them. However, if you look carefully, these so-called ethical guidelines are mainly geared to protect the PR industry (or in this case, the direct marketing industry) from the public, by preventing their members from arousing ire. This is like saying, "I'm not a murderer - I strictly adhere to the ethical standards and guidlines of the American Association of Professional Dismemberers and Disembowlers, and never splatter gore on your lawn."
I'll restrict myself to marketing which follows the general professional guidelines in the US, which basically has two effects:
a) Deception. No, not "lying" (which is unethical,) but misdirection and FUD.
b) Market distortion. In order for us to realize all of the benefits which capitalism is theoretically supposed to provide, we need informed consumers making rational choices in an open commodity field with low cost of entry. The requirement to build brand-name recognition through advertizing (which is distinct from building a reputation for quality simply by selling a good product) drives up the cost of entry, discourages informed decision making, and otherwise stifles competition.
People who actually violate the law cause all kinds of additional damage to the economy, but that's chump change compared to the damage that legitimate businesses do.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
If people are going to have this opinion in a capatalistic society, then that's hypocrisy and I think they need to think a bit more about what they are doing. If these people think that advertising shouldn't have a place in our society then I think they should consider that maybe money doesn't either. Because we can't have both. Capitalism needs marketing,
What sort of nonsense is this? If you accept the concept of a free market, then you must accept the fact that there is a market for businesses that do not perform an action that irritates a segment of the market. Capitalism in fact demands that businesses must consider and respond to whether or not customers appreciate marketing. If you fail to meet this demand, then do not have the hypocrisy to whine about consumers having choices.
Capitalism does not mean that society must roll over and accept anything that a business does.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm currently working in advertising, and increasingly we're finding that, no capitalism doesn't need advertising or marketing in this sense. There are a lot of very relevant ways to attract people to products that are not intrusive and can be interesting. Somebody stated that, perfectly targeted advertising is no longer advertising, but information.
Once this hits the mobile, the distinction will be important.
Also, sending emails every other day is a damn good way to be listed as spam!
>> lead to a case of mistaken spammmer identity for a legit business trying to send its marketing email,
If its unsolicted advertising its spam. It doesn't matter if the company thinks itself is legitimate or not.
spam is not required to be all about p3n1s enlargement.
There's a major one missing:
If you have a customer that cancels their account with you, take that as being an opt-out! If they cancel and then a month or so later receive an email from you, they will more likely than not just mark it as spam (with the other couple messages that got through their filters) rather than bother with opening your large, image-filled email just to click a link to go to your slow website to politely stop receiving your email.
Not only that, but unless I can consciously remember signing up for a particular mailing list, I'm not going to use its unsubscribe link -- I'm just going to mark it as Spam.
Why? Because an "unsubscribe" link can just as easily be an "this email address is live, sell it to all the other scumbags" link. Unless I know that the organization it's coming from is legit, clicking on an 'unsubscribe' link in an email is considered harmful, and I won't do it.
If you want to send out bulk emails (and I think this is a pretty terrible idea to begin with), you should carefully cull your lists if you don't want to be marked as a spammer. I don't want to get messages from someone for the rest of my life, just because I bought something from them once. At best, that's going to make me regret ever doing business with them. Just because I bought something from your crummy web store, shouldn't give you the right to send crap to me forever; if I haven't made another purchase in a few months, I'm probably not coming back. Roll the old address off of the list, and move on -- you're probably just going into a junk-mail box somewhere anyway. (Or more likely, being "eaten" by Spam Gourmet after the 10 messages from you I told it to let through have come and gone, because I didn't trust your ass not to spam me in the first place.)
The ultimate definition of "Spam" is pretty simple: it's email that people don't want to receive. If you're sending out email to people who would rather not be getting it, you're a spammer, plain and simple. It may not be illegal (yet), but it doesn't mean that it's not obnoxious.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In fact, I would say there is NONE.
Look, we don't let people go around in the street, sneaking their hand into our pockets and putting their business card into it. Why? Because it is too close to an illegal act called pick-pocketing. Similarly, as much as the business men WANT to send out mass mailing, it is time to say:
Hey your business model is too close to an illegal act, so stop doing it.
There are alternatives, and frankly Email is NOT the best way to deliver 're-occuring' messages. You can do things like push technology where someone agrees to have a web site automatically background downloaded into a cache whenever they log on to the internet and stay on for more than 1 minute. A flag can pop up on your tool bar, saying you have unreviewed downloaded pages. I know push technology has failed, but that was in part due to email already being accepted. If we outlaw the email reoccuring mass-mailing, then that will give some form of Push technology an opportunity to fill the niche that email used to take care of.
If we ever want to clean up email, we need to STOP mis-using it ourselves.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
All commercial e-mail is Spam
That's the silliest thing I've read in a long time.
I subscribe to a number of mailing lists to find out when sales at companies I like are going on. I get mail from REI, Campmor, Frontier, Newegg, and a few others. I save money this way. I like money. When I want to unsubscribe from these emails, I click on the link - I don't report mail as spam unless it's actually spam. All of those newsletters I just talked about are commercial email.
Do you consider catalogs you subscribe to junkmail?
Do you consider coupons you get from companies you've asked to receive coupons from junkmail?
Unfortunately - it's viewpoints like that of the parent that are contributing to the spam blocking problem, creating a huge gray area of marketers who get caught in all kinds of filters because users are "complaining" about email they once opted in to, but are now too lazy to click the "unsubscribe" link.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
People have better ways to find things out than being fed lies, deception and FUD. We have schools, we have newspapers (or had, before the PR assholes started disguising FUD and deception as articles), we have libraries, etc, to actually find things out.
If you look at history, we remember stuff like, say, the great library of Alexandria, _not_ some big Egyptian marketting campaign. We remember the schools of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, _not_ some great ancient spammer. And if that information even got to us, we can thank some monasteries who worked dilligently to copy the manuscripts, not some medieval "enlarge thy phalus to the size of the Spanish Armada" spam campaign.
Here's some information: until _very_ recently (as in 19'th century or so, and even then in homoeopathic doses for anything that wasn't snake oil) marketting wasn't even need at _all_, and tended to not even exist. In an economy of scarcity, you don't need to distort everyone's perception to sell your stuff, you just need to bring it to the market. It'll sell itself. Trust me, when Venice or later Portugal brought a ship loaded spices from Asia, they didn't need to bulk-send leaflets hyping them: people would buy them anyway.
The disproportionate need for marketting to sell stuff is _very_ recent and a result of the economy of abundance. Large companies are no longer limited by how much they can produce, but by how much they can sell. Everyone can over-produce pretty much anything. Coca Cola or Pepsi could ramp their production to drown the whole world, Nike could make shoes for everyone on the whole planet, etc. The limit is demand nowadays. And we've already been at the point of just trying to produce more and dump them cheaper, that's how the Great Depression happened. So nowadays we end up hiring more people to create an artificial demand by marketting, than to actually produce stuff.
But again, that's a very recent phenomenon. If you picked even someone from the 17'th or 18'th century, much less a caveman, and try to tell them that somewhere there's a society where you need to beg and convince people to buy your goods, they'd think you're seriously deluded or telling them some kind of fable. The whole notion was simply alien, as the wold economy was simply always at a point where agregate demand vastly outstripped aggregate supply. Even if one place had an exceptional year and over-produced grain, two-three other places were having a severe famine, so some merchant would come and buy your grain anyway.
So basically, oh please. If you're trying to tell me that marketters got us out of the stone age and got us educated, that's on par with claiming that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy did it. It's just that ludicrious.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
But honestly, how do they KNOW you don't want it unless they give it a try? (I'm 100% serious here. I want your response.)
Easy; assume I don't want it unless I request it. If I write a personal email to someone, like to customer service, I expect a response. If I order something, I assume they'll send me a confirmation. I don't want an email a week for the next 50 years.
That's just common sense: if you don't know whether the person on the other end will want to receive something or not, don't send it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."