Sorry man. Little itchy on the finger trigger and should have remembered the page breaks. Been awhile since I have been posting. The blogs and sys admins and as always in the know about the real deal. Bummer for me I lost a very important clients because of a real spammer. Maybe it is poetic justic for my pre 1997 opt-in years...
Kind Regards,
Jay
Hi guys, I am the CEO of EmailResults.net. I founded the opt-in business in 1997 by working with teams of intelligent people like yourselves who also hated spam but knew their could be a legitimate industry for relevant marketing content based on individuals true interests. I can tell you we do not run and hide with fake headers, hijack mail servers or deliver irrelevent "get rich quick scams" or porno crap.
We are and were one of the two vendors Dean recruited. However, the error that Dean made was to use any company sourced out of Boca Raton for email marketing. They all use the Naviant untargeted list of 100 million email names harvested in 1998 by eDirect. We delivered to a list of 175,000 know democratic voters in 5 states. We received two complaints from Dean supporters who did not like the delivery mechanism behind his message. All of our headers, data used was all legit.
I formed an alliance with Jim Nitchels, one of the original founders of CAUCE (now deceased) in 1997 to create the industry. Walt Rines (brother and Sanford Wallace) was also involved but were two conceited people who did not care about real relevence in email marketing and did not want to pay a penny to network admins like yourselves who were and are trying to protect individual rights of privacy and keep your networks up and running. I took the time to understand the real issues by listening to the sys admins and create and industry that once again is being pissed on by greedy people.
The premise of "opt-in" email marketing as defined by the spam advocy groups and myself at the time was about:
1) Delivering relevant content to individuals who have stated an interest in a product or service
2) Have given true consent to receive messages
3) Paying the networks for bearing the burden of legitimate marketing messages.
4) Parterning with such companies to receive the demographic and interest points of each subscriber then sending a confirmation to the subscriber confirming relevant interests BEFORE marketing piece one went out.
I have three of four legitimate competitors who still actually conform with such standards. However, the other hundreds who have a website and sell email marketing, do not adhere to such practices. Therefore, companies and politicians alike invariably make the wrong choices and recruit companies which are completely shady. It's a shame and a learning experience for Dean no doubt, who is a good man trying to tackle some tough issues.
I invite additional posts, direct dialogue and your feedback as I have recently become involved with again trying to tackle the problem of defining to the nation what legitimate email content is vs. spamming. If we want a true solution, it will be those of us that run the networks and Internet and gets it done together as it happened in 1997.
I can tell you the biggest challenge I have seen to change the industry. It is the attitude of big business who feel they do not have to pay delivery services to send legitimate email content over the networks. I find this baffling as TV advertisers pay ABC, NBC, MTV and other major netowrks to deliver the message over the air. Same with radio. Direct postal gets delivered over the US Postal Service who is getting paid to do this. Why do we not have any real action happening about really killing spam and defining legitimate newsletter, marketing content? Greed from big business. This should change and can change but requires an alliance similar to the one I spoke about in 1997. The true solution of killing spam is to bring big business and the major netorks together which I helped facilitate in 1997. There are plenty of technical solutions to monitor and filter junk mail vs. legitimate email content. However, you can use the drastic technology measures until big business and the networks decide what relevant content is vs. spamming. It is the definition that is lacking.
Good luck to you all. Figured I would lend my two cents into this discussion.
Best Regards,
Jason C. Rines
CEO
EmailResults.net
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry man. Little itchy on the finger trigger and should have remembered the page breaks. Been awhile since I have been posting. The blogs and sys admins and as always in the know about the real deal. Bummer for me I lost a very important clients because of a real spammer. Maybe it is poetic justic for my pre 1997 opt-in years... Kind Regards, Jay
Hi guys, I am the CEO of EmailResults.net. I founded the opt-in business in 1997 by working with teams of intelligent people like yourselves who also hated spam but knew their could be a legitimate industry for relevant marketing content based on individuals true interests. I can tell you we do not run and hide with fake headers, hijack mail servers or deliver irrelevent "get rich quick scams" or porno crap. We are and were one of the two vendors Dean recruited. However, the error that Dean made was to use any company sourced out of Boca Raton for email marketing. They all use the Naviant untargeted list of 100 million email names harvested in 1998 by eDirect. We delivered to a list of 175,000 know democratic voters in 5 states. We received two complaints from Dean supporters who did not like the delivery mechanism behind his message. All of our headers, data used was all legit. I formed an alliance with Jim Nitchels, one of the original founders of CAUCE (now deceased) in 1997 to create the industry. Walt Rines (brother and Sanford Wallace) was also involved but were two conceited people who did not care about real relevence in email marketing and did not want to pay a penny to network admins like yourselves who were and are trying to protect individual rights of privacy and keep your networks up and running. I took the time to understand the real issues by listening to the sys admins and create and industry that once again is being pissed on by greedy people. The premise of "opt-in" email marketing as defined by the spam advocy groups and myself at the time was about: 1) Delivering relevant content to individuals who have stated an interest in a product or service 2) Have given true consent to receive messages 3) Paying the networks for bearing the burden of legitimate marketing messages. 4) Parterning with such companies to receive the demographic and interest points of each subscriber then sending a confirmation to the subscriber confirming relevant interests BEFORE marketing piece one went out. I have three of four legitimate competitors who still actually conform with such standards. However, the other hundreds who have a website and sell email marketing, do not adhere to such practices. Therefore, companies and politicians alike invariably make the wrong choices and recruit companies which are completely shady. It's a shame and a learning experience for Dean no doubt, who is a good man trying to tackle some tough issues. I invite additional posts, direct dialogue and your feedback as I have recently become involved with again trying to tackle the problem of defining to the nation what legitimate email content is vs. spamming. If we want a true solution, it will be those of us that run the networks and Internet and gets it done together as it happened in 1997. I can tell you the biggest challenge I have seen to change the industry. It is the attitude of big business who feel they do not have to pay delivery services to send legitimate email content over the networks. I find this baffling as TV advertisers pay ABC, NBC, MTV and other major netowrks to deliver the message over the air. Same with radio. Direct postal gets delivered over the US Postal Service who is getting paid to do this. Why do we not have any real action happening about really killing spam and defining legitimate newsletter, marketing content? Greed from big business. This should change and can change but requires an alliance similar to the one I spoke about in 1997. The true solution of killing spam is to bring big business and the major netorks together which I helped facilitate in 1997. There are plenty of technical solutions to monitor and filter junk mail vs. legitimate email content. However, you can use the drastic technology measures until big business and the networks decide what relevant content is vs. spamming. It is the definition that is lacking. Good luck to you all. Figured I would lend my two cents into this discussion. Best Regards, Jason C. Rines CEO EmailResults.net