FTC Opt out clarification

In early July, the Magilla Marketing newsletter has an article about how email preference centers may now be illegal due to the clarifications published by the FTC. Trevor Hughes of the ESPC is quoted extensively, lamenting about how marketers cannot legally interfere in the unsubscribe process.

The FTC’s opt out clarification “complicates things in that it demands simplicity when simplicity may not be the status quo,” said Hughes. “The two opt-out mechanisms that are permissible [under the law] as we understand it are a reply-based mechanism where you reply to the e-mail and write ‘opt-out’ in the subject line or body of the message, or alternatively, that you click through to a Web page [to opt out]. But it has to be a single Web page.”

Personally, I see no problem with a single web page. As I wrote about last week, forcing recipients to use a preference center to unsubscribe means that people that are not really customers cannot unsubscribe when you start sending them email.
I do not think the FTC rulings mean the end to asking for information, or even the end of offering more choices than just opting out. According to the FTC senders must allow recipients to opt out on the first page, without anything more than the unsubscribe address and the preference. The rules do not say that the marketer cannot link to another page or ask for more information on the unsubscribe page. The rules only say that marketers cannot require more information in order to process the unsubscribe.
Trevor’s complaints seem to me to be nothing more than the lamenting of a marketer that marketers MUST make things difficult for rubes recipients in order to keep recipients on their marketing lists. His statements are extremely recipient unfriendly. Of course, it is his job to advocate for marketers and not consider the experience or desires of recipients.
In the world of non-internet direct marketing, very little consideration has been given to the recipient. Direct marketers live on the mantra that if they send enough to a recipient, eventually the recipient will make a purchase. Sadly, for the poor direct marketers, recipients actually have more power against the marketer online than they do in the real world. Annoying recipients, sending offers they do not want, sending more than they want, all that works against the sender. Smart marketers will learn to adapt. Poor marketers will lament how unfair it all is.

Related Posts

PayPal Followup

I thought I would give everyone a brief update on my continuing saga with trying to unsubscribe from PayPal’s marketing list. Because of what I do, I have some options not available to the average recipient. One of the things I did is ask people I know if they had any contacts at PayPal who may be able to address this issue.
I was given an internal contact at PayPal by a colleague who works at one of the certification companies. I sent the PayPal contact a brief summary of my experience. She explained she was not in a department that handled email any more, but that she forwarded my mail on to the responsible people. A little later I received another message saying that I had been unsubscribed and they were examining the tapes of my call. She also mentioned that their unsubscribe process would be changed “sometime in mid-July.” I was not given any details.
A colleague who attended the recent AOTA meeting in Seattle offered this comment.

Read More

New email related blog

Mickey Chandler, of SpamSuite.com has launched a new email delivery specific blog: Spamtacular.com. He moved a number of posts from his other blog, but today has a new post up about how a prior business relationship impacts compliance with CAN SPAM. He concludes with:

Read More

Declan weighs in on the VA law

Declan McCullagh writes today about the VA anti-spam law being overturned by the state supreme court.

Read More