Permission: Let’s Talk Facts

I’ve commented in the past about how I can usually tell when an ISP makes filtering changes because all my calls relate to that ISP. The more recent contender is Gmail. They made changes a few months ago and a lot of folks are struggling to reach the inbox now. What I’m seeing, working with clients, is that there are two critical pieces to getting to the gmail inbox: permission and engagement.

In this post I’m primarily going to talk about permission. I’ve said the engagement piece over and over again, but I’ve not actually written about permission in a while.

Permission is not simply a checkbox.

This is the core of things. Permission is not an overlooked checkbox on a website. Permission is not a phrase hidden in paragraph 8, subsection f, section 3, Title 2 of the privacy policy that is shown on a tiny little link on the signup page. Permission is not an easily overlooked pre-checked checkbox.

Permission is an invitation.

Envelope.
Permission is the recipient wanting mail and inviting the sender to send mail. If there’s not a direct relationship between the person that collected the address and the sender then there’s not really permission there. Permission isn’t transferrable like that.

That’s not what our data providers say!

I can hear some of my readers now yelling and swearing that they use good data. And that the addresses involved really do have permission. And the folks providing the data absolutely assert they are collecting permission to share the address.

Let me ask you this: how many times have you seen a signup page that asks you to opt-in to selling your address? How many times have you actually checked that box?

But my privacy policy says!

A client recently came to me with some pretty horrible delivery problems. They assured me that the sources of addresses were clean and good. I mean, Big Name Politician used this company so they must be good, right?

I spent some time looking for this “clear” permission on the websites that the address collector told me they used. Sites we’ve all heard of and, I suspect, many of us have given addresses to at one time or another. Needless to say it was difficult at best to find any permission. There was one paragraph that said:

Only at your election and if you specifically consent, we may share information about you with our advertisers, including your email address, mailing address and […]. We may also share your telephone number, but only if you separately consent. The advertiser may then use this information to communicate with you and send you promotional materials that may be of interest to you. We do not control the content or frequency of communications that you may receive from our advertisers.

There was no opt-in checkbox on the page where addresses were collected.

Another website says directly “We don’t sell your address without direct permission” on their FAQ. But in a different section of the FAQ they have 4 paragraphs dedicated to how they’ll share your address. Including statements like, “We may also provide information to trusted partners who work on behalf of or with […] under confidentiality agreements. These companies may use your personal information to communicate with you about offers from […]and our marketing partners. ”

Again, there was no checkbox on the page where addresses were collected.

Sure, there was legal permission. I’m sure lawyers spent hours drafting those privacy policies. It’s even possible the legal speak wasn’t intended to obscure the fact that addresses are shared and sold. But none of that really matters because it was hard to find.

Hidden permission isn’t permission.

Look, this isn’t permission and really, we all know it. Most marketing doesn’t ask for permission. At best they might ask for forgiveness, but never for permission.

But email isn’t like those venues. In other spaces marketing and advertising pays the bills. Banner ads, television ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, they pay for the content we see and hear and read. Email is more like walking into someone’s living room and starting your pitch. Unless you’ve been invited in the house you’re really unwelcome.

Is Permission That Important?

Yeah, permission is that important. Permission is the key to the inbox.

Why don’t you talk about it more?

The vast majority of email marketers will tell you they always have permission and fully believe in permission based email. The challenge is when there are different definitions of permission. When it comes to the inbox, though, the only opinion that matters is that of the recipient. If the recipient doesn’t know they’re giving permission then there’s not really permission. Just because it’s in the privacy policy doesn’t mean much. Marketers must make more of an effort to get informed permission.

Related Posts

Fraud, terms of service and email marketing

gavelHere at the Atkins house we’re still both recovering from the M3AAWG plague. I don’t know what it was that we shared during the conference, but it’s knocked many folks over. I don’t have a lot to blog about this afternoon so I was looking through some of my old blog posts to get at least some content up before I give up for the weekend.
I found an old post about permission (Permission: It May Not Be What You Think It Is). The post discusses where a woman sued Toyota over emails from an online marketing campaign. I’d totally forgotten about that blog post, so I started looking at what happened with the case.
In the original case Toyota created a social media campaign where people could opt their friends in to be the target of a prank.

Read More

Poor delivery can't be fixed with technical perfection

There are a number of different things delivery experts can do help senders improve their own delivery. Yes, I said it: senders are responsible for their delivery. ESPs, delivery consultants and deliverability experts can’t fix delivery for senders, they can only advise.
In my own work with clients, I usually start with making sure all the technical issues are correct. As almost all spam filtering is score based, and the minor scores given to things like broken authentication and header issues and formatting issues can make the difference between an email that lands in the inbox and one that doesn’t get delivered.
I don’t think I’m alone in this approach, as many of my clients come to me for help with their technical settings. In some cases, though, fixing the technical problems doesn’t fix the delivery issues. No matter how much my clients tweak their settings and attempt to avoid spamfilters by avoiding FREE!! in the subject line, or changing the background, they still can’t get mail in the inbox.
Why not? Because they’re sending mail that the recipients don’t really want, for whatever reason. There are so many ways a sender can collect an email address without actually collecting consent to send mail to that recipient. Many of the “list building” strategies mentioned by a number of experts involve getting a fig leaf of permission from recipients without actually having the recipient agree to receive mail.
Is there really any difference in permission between purchasing a list of “qualified leads” and automatically adding anyone who makes a purchase at a website to marketing lists? From the recipient’s perspective they’re still getting mail they don’t want, and all the technical perfection in the world can’t overcome the negative reputation associated with spamming.
The secret to inbox delivery: don’t send mail that looks like spam. That includes not sending mail to people who have not expressly consented to receive mail.

Read More

Necessary but not sufficient

TechnicalTwitterConversation
With all the emphasis on getting the technical right, there seem to be people who think their mail will be delivered as long as the technical is right.
Getting the technical right is necessary for good inbox delivery, but it’s not sufficient.
The most important part of getting mail to the inbox is sending mail users want. In fact, if you’re sending mail folks want, interact with and enjoy then you can get away with sloppy technical bits. Look, major players (eBay and Intuit) have invalid SPF records, but we’re all still getting mail from them.
There are also a lot of folks who are doing everything technically perfectly, but their mail is still going to bulk. Why? Because their recipients don’t want their mail.
Permission is still the key to getting mail to the inbox. In fact, permission is more important than getting all the technical bits right. If you have permission you can play a little fast and loose with the technical stuff. If you have the technical stuff right you still need permission.
 
 

Read More