As I mentioned in my last post, I asked my dad to have a look at Gretchen Scheiman’s MediaPost post. My dad is a baby boomer and I think is a relatively normal email user. He does not know (nor does he care) how spam filters or mail servers work. He calls me when his email reader (Eudora) breaks down or when mail appears to get lost. And Dad’s biggest complaint about email is how much spam he gets.
He very kindly responded:
Dear Mickey,
First of all, I thought the writer was a little naive about allowing spammers or web site owners to send her email.
I didn’t like her attitude about “come on one and all.” I have found (by experience) that if I let someone in my email by not giving permission, I have a real problem about getting them to stop and a lot of the time having their friends to come in, as well.
After reading her article I tried to compare it to what I do when I visit a web site. If the web site has a feature on it to find out more about the product or company, I invite them to send the info either by email or a daily, weekly, or monthly newsletter. I haven’t had any problem with getting these companies to stop sending me their info if I ask them or by clicking the unsubscribe link located most of the time at the bottom of their email.
As much as I try to keep the uninvited out, I’m forever receiving mail from the unethical spammers, anyway. I have found out (by experience) that if you tell them to stay out, they change a letter or number slightly and resend the email. It is an on going battle to say the least, but I work as hard as I can to keep these bums out of my email.
Love ya,
Dad
There you have it, folks. His concern is that if you start sending him mail without permission that he won’t be able to get you to stop sending him mail when he wants you to. That sounds pretty sane and rational to me. If someone starts emailing without permission, why would their recipients expect them to then stop emailing at any point?
And the bottom line here: My dad, at least, sees people who who email without permission as bums who should be kept out of his inbox.
Mickey, I think your dad is spot on here. The original post by Gretchen portrays a hypothetical consumer that seems to be incapable of figuring out what they want. Consumers are smarter now than we ever have been. I think it's illogical to make this assumption. Just because I've bought from you, doesn't mean I want your emails on a regular basis, just my confirmation email and a shipping notification email will suffice.
Gretchen states above that we need to take into consideration for how our costumers act and not just what they say. I agree, but if I didn't take the action for your signing up for your emails, I certainly am making a statement there. If you want me as a customer, gain my trust.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Al Iverson, Spamtacular.com and Andrew Barrett, Spamtacular.com. Spamtacular.com said: Blog post: An Average Email User Responds http://bit.ly/bnt9o2 [...]
Part 1: I think your dad missed an important point of my post – this isn't about "anyone" and it isn't a free for all – the email was addressed very specifically to companies a customer has done business with. Your dad is actually unlike most customers if he actively seeks out opportunities to provide his email address to companies he does business with. I say this based on opt-in data, which is based on user behavior rather than what users say they do.
I do business with a lot of companies. I don't want email from all of them. One of the ways I manage those relationships is to not provide an email address to companies that I don't want email from. A company that goes out and finds my email address is a company that has gone out of their way to ignore my preferences.
You can claim this is uncommon behaviour, and I might even agree with you. But, pretending that the only reason people don't give up email addresses is because they're too stupid or too lazy is quite offensive. It's neither laziness nor stupidity.
"I think your dad missed an important point of my post … your dad isn't wrong… but he isn't right either. (And it would have helped for him to have read who the email was addressed to" – GRETCHEN SCHEIMAN
I'd love to know how you read someone to who an email is addressed to. is that like reading someone like a book?
Your 'hypothetical' was addressed to marketers, and purported to say on behalf of customers that they are too busy to figure out how to sign up for a follow-up email list. As I said on MediaPost, if they need to figure anything out, then you are doing it wrong. It is a simple matter, at the end of a transaction to have facility to sign up for further communications (beyond invoicing and possibly product update, safety notices and so on).
You the go on to say "When I've had the opportunity to ask customers about behavior versus repsonse I've often found that customers give a much more intelligent, considered, and pragmatic response to just about any question."
They why are you arguing with Mickey's Dad? His response was clear, considered and intelligent. Properly conducted market research doesn't argue with the results, it accepts them. Both on mediaPost and here you have shown zero willingness to accept what people have told you repeatedly: You are wrong, Gretchen.
Part 2: Which is really my point: this debate needs to take into consideration how customers actually act, not just what customers say. When I've had the opportunity to ask customers about behavior versus repsonse, I've often found that customers give a much more intelligent, considered, and pragmatic response to just about any question. Especially to questions that speak to thorny issues such as privacy, permission, relevance, and other issues which we work hard to consider daily. Customers usually recognize that the difference between what they say and what they do represents a gray area in how we communicate and message which marketers have yet to solve for – or to which there are limits to how effective our solutions are.
All this to say, your dad isn't wrong… but he isn't right either. (And it would have helped for him to have read who the email was addressed to).
I think that we must listen to what customers say. When we stop listening to what they say and start assuming things that run counter to what they tell us because we THINK that their actions say something different, then we need to stop pretending that we respect our recipients at all.
While all analogies are poor, when we get to this point then we stand pretty much in the same place as the man on trial for sexual assault whose defense is "She said, 'No,' but her body language said 'YES!'" It's disrespectful to say that we can disregard what you're saying because of how you're acting or how you look.
Mickey, I think your dad is spot on here. The original post by Gretchen portrays a hypothetical consumer that seems to be incapable of figuring out what they want. Consumers are smarter now than we ever have been. I think it's illogical to make this assumption. Just because I've bought from you, doesn't mean I want your emails on a regular basis, just my confirmation email and a shipping notification email will suffice.
Gretchen states above that we need to take into consideration for how our costumers act and not just what they say. I agree, but if I didn't take the action for your signing up for your emails, I certainly am making a statement there. If you want me as a customer, gain my trust. You certainly won't do that by sending my unsolicited emails.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Caldwell and Shannon Holato, Inbox Group. Inbox Group said: RT @jacaldwell: +1 RT @shannonholato: Great post by @spamtacularcom – "Keep the Bums Out of my Email" http://bit.ly/d84iPP [...]
Gretchen's opt-in data speaks volumes perhaps. Clearly people don't want that mail. If they did they'd ask for it. Sending it anyway is more than disrespectful… Its an electronic slap in the face to the potential/current/former customer. It's a slap in the face to one's upstream ISP or ESP. It's a slap in the face to pretty much any and every party involved. Slapping customers, vendors, and partners alike in face is not something that should be condoned.
I love the way that it hits the nail on the head so swiftly. Spammers are untrustworthy, that's why they are spamming in the first place, so why would you trust the unsubscribe link in an email you have not asked for or do not know how you got there. That's why there is a spam button, so users can do something about it, the ISPs then lower the reputation and acceptance rate of a sender in response of the complaints.
The lesson here is that, from the landing on the site, through the sign-up, to every email they receive afterwards; marketers have to remember the amount of trust someone has given them and, using the content, ensure recipients know their address is safe and can easily tell that it is the email they asked for.
I expect that's just validation for may people who read this but it's important to affirm these things and possibly bump them up the priorities for the next email.
After all, 'Deliverability is decided on by recipient reactions to your sending practices'.
[...] An Average Email User Responds. My dad cracks the top ten list for the year at #3. This post was the second part of a two parter dealing with Gretchen Scheiman’s MediaPost post declaring that consumers want people to disregard permission and market to them anyway. My dad is a really smart guy. If you didn’t check out his thoughts, please do. [...]