Confusing opt-in and opt-out

Harvard Business Review posted a blog earlier this week suggesting that all businesses should treat email marketing as an opt-out process. Unfortunately, the post seemed to me to conflate and confuse a number of things.
She mixes in potential customers providing business cards to an exhibitor at a trade show with current customers that are using a product. She promotes businesses using opt-out as a default communication practice, but then talks about giving customers preference centers to manage the contact.
Overall, it was a very confusing article.
For instance the author says:

Many B2B marketers abide by a [opt-in only] policy, but they don’t have to — and shouldn’t. In fact, I’d argue, your business customers generally would prefer the reverse: an opt-out arrangement in which you send them messages unless they say “stop.”

Of course, the author then completely negates her own point by pointing out how businesses collect email addresses from customers and provide preference centers so that the recipients can control the communication center.

[T]he gold standard of business communications permissions today is to offer a choice to customers, like a web-based form that allows them to indicate their preferences. Let them choose the media channels they prefer and how often they want to hear from you. Allow them to change their preferences at any time. And above all, comply with their requests.

I dunno, that sounds pretty opt-in in practice to me. Once you get to the point of collecting email addresses from actual, paying customers, and implement them a preference center then I’m finding it hard to see how that is opt-out.
What a lot of other readers focused on and objected to is her example of collecting business cards at a trade show.

Consider this scenario: Say you attend a trade show and exchange business cards with an exhibitor. Does that exhibitor have permission to contact you by email? Of course. You fully expect to receive email (or phone, or postal mail) follow-up. That’s how you stay informed, build relationships, and do your job.

Many of us have had horrible experiences with over aggressive marketers collecting business cards and then adding us to marketing lists. A followup email or phone call is absolutely expected. An invite to join a mailing list? That’s not opt-out and is a fine practice. Adding every business card you find to your marketing list? That’s a major no-no and the only practice I’d consider opt-out here.
I am pleased to see the number of email marketing folks that commented at hbr.org, and on DJ Waldow’s post at Bronto blog arguing that opt-out was bad and even B2B marketers needed to use opt-in. But when I went back to the article to draft this post I couldn’t find where the author actually talked about opt-out marketing except when she said all businesses should use opt-out marketing. All of her examples involved users giving vendors their email addresses. How is that opt-out?

Blocklists, delisting and extortion
Signing up for lists

Related Posts

A very young industry

Last week I saw a tweet that quoted Joel Book, Director of eMarketing Education at Exacttarget as saying

Read More

State of the Industry

Over the last few weeks I’ve had a series of posts on the blog from various authors who are active in the email space.
I posted A very young industry commenting on the lack of experience among email marketers. I think that some of the conflict between ISPs and ESPs and receivers and marketers can be traced back to this lack of longevity and experience. Often there is only a single delivery expert at a company. These people often have delivery responsibilities dropped on them without any real training or warning. They have to rely on outside resources to figure out how to do their job and often that means leaning on ISPs for training.
JD Falk described how many at ISPs feel about this in his post With great wisdom…

Read More

The legitimate email marketer

I cannot tell you how many times over the last 10 years I’ve been talking to someone with a problem and had them tell me “but I’m a legitimate email marketer.” Most of them have at least one serious problem, from upstreams that are ready to terminate them for spamming through widespread blocking. In fact, the practices of most companies who proclaim “we’re legitimate email marketers” are so bad that the phrase has entered the lexicon as a sign that the company is attempting to surf the gray area between commercial email and spam as close to the spam side of that territory as possible.
What do I mean by that? I mean that the address collection practices and the mailing processes used by self-proclaimed legitimate email marketers are sloppy. They don’t really care about individual recipients, they just care about the numbers. They buy addresses, they use affiliates, they dip whole limbs in the co-reg pool; all told their subscription practices are very sloppy. Because they didn’t scrape or harvest the email address, they feel justified in claiming the recipient asked for it and that they are legitimate.
They don’t really care that they’re mailing people who don’t want their mail and really never asked to receive it. What kinds of practices am I talking about?
Buying co-reg lists. “But the customer signed up, made a purchase, took an online quiz and the privacy policy says their address can be shared.” The recipient doesn’t care that they agreed to have their email address handed out to all and sundry, they don’t want that mail.
Arguing with subscribers. “But all those people who labeled my mail as spam actually subscribed!!!” Any time a mailer has to argue with a subscriber about the validity of the subscription, there is a problem with the subscription process. If the sender and the receiver disagree on whether there was really an opt-in, the senders are rarely given the benefit of the doubt.
Using affiliates to hide their involvement in spam. A number of companies use advertising agencies that outsource acquisition mailings that end up being sent by spammers. These acquisition mailings are sent by the same spammers sending enlargement spam. The advertiser gets all the benefits of spam without any of the consequences.
Knowing that their signup forms are abused but failing to stop the abuse. A few years back I was talking with a large political mailer. They were insisting they were legitimate email marketers but were finding a lot of mail blocked. I mentioned that they were a large target for people forging addresses in their signup form. I explained that mailing people who never asked for mail was probably the source of their delivery problems. They admitted they were probably mailing people who never signed up, but weren’t going to do anything about it as it was good for their bottom line to have so many subscribers.
Self described legitimate email marketers do the bare minimum possible to meet standards. They talk the talk to convince their customers they’re legitimate:

Read More