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

What do you think about these hot button issues?

bullhornIt’s been one of those weeks where blogging is a challenge. Not because I don’t have much to say, but because I don’t have much constructive to say. Rants can be entertaining, even to write. But they’re not very helpful in terms of what do we need to change and how do we move forward.
A few different things I read or saw brought out the rants this week. Some of these are issues I don’t have answers to, and some of them are issues where I just disagree with folks, but have nothing more useful to say than, “You’re wrong.” I don’t even always have an answer to why they’re wrong, they’re just wrong.
I thought today I’d bring up the issues that made me so ranty and list the two different points of views about them and see what readers think about them. (Those of you who follow me on Facebook probably know which ones my positions are, but I’m going to try and be neutral about my specific positions.)

Read More

Old Lists and RadioShack

RadioShack is putting their assets up for sale including more than 65 million customer records and 13 million email addresses. Many are up in arms about the sale of personal data including the Texas Attorney General and AT&T who both want the data destroyed.
Part of the controversy is that RadioShack’s privacy policy states the collected data will be only used by RadioShack and its affiliates and that they will not “sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time”. Company acquisitions happen all the time and data like this is often sold to the new owner and the sale of customer data is common. The problem with RadioShack selling the customer data is that their privacy policy states they will never sell the information.
RadioShack was one of the first companies to ask for personal information at checkout, sometimes refusing a sale without providing it and the collection of data during checkout caught on quickly. Having demographic information for retargeting of customers is extremely valuable to marketers, but only if it’s valid data. With RadioShack, people often lie about their zip code and if they are giving incorrect zip codes I’m pretty sure their email address isn’t going to be valid either. Even Kramer asks why does RadioShack ask for your phone number…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfaYKoQxzQ
If a client asked if this was a good investment and if the list had value, I would tell them no. Sending to this list will have poor delivery because the data is dirty and the lack of a clear opt-in is going to be problematic especially since a RadioShack customer is not expecting to receive mail from you. Many ESPs have policies prohibiting sending to a purchased list and doing so will hurt your relationship with the ESP.
If a client had already purchased the list and wanted to send to it, I would tell them their reputation is going to take a significant hit and I would discourage them from sending. The list is going to be full of domains that no longer exist and contain abandoned email addresses including ones that have been turned into spam traps.
When preparing to send to a new list of email addresses, I go through this process:

Read More

5 Simple Tricks to Reach the Inbox

I saw a post over on LinkedIn today. It was from an ESP, talking about their simple tips and tricks for getting into the inbox. The laughable bit was half the “tricks” had nothing to do with getting to the inbox, but rather were about enticing people to open the mail once it’s gotten to the inbox.
There are no “tricks” to getting to the inbox. There used to be some tricks. But the ISPs figured them out and protect against them.

Read More