Follow Us On...

Authors

The Email Delivery Guru

Permission Failure: Exchanging Business Cards

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 by Al Iverson

I received a B2B spam email today. That’s not too remarkable. I get anywhere from four to eight of them a day. The volume is irritating enough that I log them, and I always reply and ask where they got my email address from. (Some day, I might even “out” some of the worst offenders, highlighting their lack of permission for the whole world to see. And to shine an uncomfortable spotlight on those awful “business contact database” selling companies, who sell B2B lists.) 

This time, I got a reply back to my query. The sender indicated that I gave them a business card at a conference.

Okay, so it’s somebody I’ve actually met. That’s fine, that’s good. I give out a lot of business cards at conferences. People always want my business card, and often ask me if it’s okay to email me a deliverability question or two at some point in the future. Time permitting, I welcome deliverability questions via email, and answer as many as I can.

But, just because I gave you my email address, how does that mean that I wanted to be subscribed to your company’s newsletter? A competitor company, even. Think of how poorly considered this is, on multiple levels. Wanted mail is well delivered mail. Did I want this mail? No, I didn’t ask for it, and I didn’t expect it. Also, do you think it’s wise to obtain competitor email addresses at conferences and sign them up for your newsletter? Do you really want to broadcast what you’re doing, directly to your competitors?

The real issue here is the logical leap (or lack of one) from “you may have my contact information” to “please send me your newsletter.” I stated the former by handing over my card. I did not state or even imply the latter. So how does somebody make the logical leap from contact info to permission? I’m not seeing it, because there’s a step missing: Asking me if I wanted to receive your newsletter. That’s what permission is all about. Ask, don’t assume. 

In this case, the guy assumed. And that assumption was a bad one, and it colored my opinion of him, and his company’s permission practices, accordingly.

I’m sure somebody somewhere will take a different point of view and suggest that gosh, this email was really targeted (or should have just been targeted a little better), and then it would have been fine. That’s untrue. “Properly targeted” spam is still spam, and the proof is in the spam complaints. Send mail to people who don’t want it, even if it’s on topic, and it garners spam complaints. It’s that simple.

In this case, I know I wasn’t the only person who received this mailing, and I know that some of the other recipients were similarly unhappy about it. I guess I’m not alone in thinking that a business card exchange doesn’t equate with opt-in permission.

Comments for Permission Failure: Exchanging Business Cards

Thursday, May 28, 2009 by David Romerstein:
Was this a case of "You handed him a business card", or was it "I threw my card into a fishbowl at a conference in hopes of winning an iPod"? If the latter (and, if it's the conference I'm thinking of), the conference organizers appear to have told fishbowl sponsors that this behaviour is acceptable.
Saturday, May 30, 2009 by Reno Lovison:
I believe on some level giving someone a business card is tacit permission to contact you. SPAM is getting something from someone I have never met, never invited to contact me and who has no idea whether I might be interested in their message. One newsletter or message from someone whom you given a business card to, with the option to opt out is within the spirit of business networking. This person has a valid reason to believe you may have an interest in his or her message. Yes even a competitor. If you do not want to get email do not include it on your business card. Let them phone you instead. Yikes!!! A a matter of total disclosure, I am the author of "Turn Your Business Card Into Business".
Monday, June 1, 2009 by gregg dourgarian:
Al I'm sure I've shared your feelings at one time or another but your apparent solution, opt-in permission, is vendor bs and no better than emailing to an address from a business card. Most spam that makes it to the inbox is unwanted crap from someone that once got permission. Staying relevant is the challenge. Gregg StaffingTalk.com
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 by Al Iverson:
Greg, opt-in permission has been a necessary best practice for years now. I've been pushing this "vendor BS" long before I ever worked for or with any email service provider, unless somehow blacklists count as email service providers. Relevance absolutely matters. But your point is like complaining that I'm too focused on tires, because what really matters in a car is the engine, period. That's wrong; they both matter.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 by Jake Holman:
Gregg, wow dude. I guess you're not actually sure what Al means by Opt-in/Permission Email Marketing. It when we specifically ask people, customers to explicitly give their permission to be emailed - it's at this point (data collection) that the relevance, frequency and relationship needs to begin. Sending relevant emails will get better results with Permission Email Marketing - rather than just sending aimlessly to business cards/harvested addresses. Even if your email is relevant when sent to harvested addresses it's still spam, it's probably still going to get trashed. With Permission Email Marketing, it's the first step to sustaining an Lifecycle approach - if someone has gone out of their way to tell you they want to be emailed the topic you specify then it's likely to be read and not trashed. And as Al has already pointed out, it's been best practise for years. Oh, also, there's Country, Government and EU legislation saying Permission Email Marketing is the preferred as well as most ISPs, Blacklists, Anti-Spam and Whitelisting Companies/Organisations saying it's a requirement - only AFTER them do the vendors starting "pushing" it.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 by John Caldwell:
There's a big difference in making direct 1:1 contact to an email address when given a business card and adding that address to a distribution list. If I give you my business card you have may contact me individually, but add me to a distribution list and you're spamming. @Gregg - Relevance doesn't matter if you don't have permission to contact me via bulk email. This isn't anything new. @Reno - By your logic any business card without an email address is fair game to be added to an auto-dialer and recorded messages. You all can try to justify bad practices and/or spamming all you want, but at the end of the day it's you that will suffer from it. An opt-out is someone leaving. A spam complaint is someone trashing the place on the way out....
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 by Annalivia Ford:
opt-in permission is "vendor BS"? Really? Who knew! Strangely enough all the numbers I look at EVERY DAY from mailers that do not practice this "vendor BS" show that those mailers have a very bad IP reputation and their delivery suffers accordingly. Mailers that DO practice this "vendor BS" have good reputation and excellent delivery. Coincidence? You be the judge. Permission definitely matters, and if someone signed me up for a newsletter just because I gave them my card so that I could answer some questions I would be Very Annoyed, and just ask anyone that I have been Very Annoyed with, exactly what that means.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 by gregg dourgarian:
Al Liked your car analogy but sorry i couldn't follow the 'which vendor is that?' part. Take this test: opt-in to 10 email marketing providers and tell me what percentage of them harangue you unwanted email about using their service. What i've found is that industry insiders say they care about both the tires and the engine but they just want your maintenance contract. "Les cordonniers vont pieds nus!"
Friday, July 3, 2009 by Traci Browne:
Al, I absolutely agree. Getting a business card does NOT give permission to add to a mailing list. If I have a business card from someone I met a long time ago and think they would benefit from my newsletter I send them a personal note with a link to the newsletter telling them what the topic is and a brief synopsis. in the personal note I tell them if they find the information valuable and would like to receive more they can sign-up after reading. As for the fishbowl at conferences I generally assume that if I do drop my card I am probably going on a list and I simply unsubscribe at that point. Whether or not it's spam I don't know but I know what I'm getting myself into and it's my decision. When our organization, the Business Marketing Association Philadelphia Chapter does a fishbowl collection for a sponsor we have signage at the bowl with clearly states they will be added to our sponsor e-mail list. If they choose not to enter at that point it is up to them but they have fair warning.
Friday, July 3, 2009 by nugget:
yes there are poor practices. yes, people assume. but it's freakin' elecctrons and that's what the delte button is for. we used to get tons of paper direct mailers.. and we all lamented the terrible waste! waste waste! can't we stop whining and just delete? and if you can't stand people following up with you after a conference then don't go. and don't hand out your business card. Ever. and then stop writing columns because that is how you get on people's radar so they want your email.. become a hermit and seal yourself off.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 by Lori Feldman:
Sorry; I have to disagree. Putting yourself "out there" in eyeball to eyeball social networking where both parties hand over business cards is implied permission. (Many people are starting to leave emails off their cards...their prerogative, but very short-sighted, I believe.) Now, having stated that, I wouldn't run home with my booty and immediately start spamming everyone I just met, newsletter or otherwise. First, I'd go thru the cards and edit out ones I don't want to work with (directly or via referral). Then I'd send a "nice to meet you at the ___ event" follow up email and let them know I want to stay in touch for mutual benefit. That's where I make my opt-out offer, and over many years have had only a handful take me up on it. Granted, this is all common sense, and there's never enough of that to go around, but what's so hard about clicking an opt-out button or--better--hitting "reply" and telling the person to remove you because you don't appreciate their tactics, thereby offering a lesson with your outrage. After all, you did meet IRL, not just in some online forum where your address got scraped.
Saturday, July 4, 2009 by Akira Morita:
Hi, spotted this via MarketingProf. Nicely articulated. There was a similar discussion at a LinkedIn group a while ago, and I suggested that forwarding a published newsletter (with a personal message inviting the receiver to subscribe) would be an okay way to get around not having a explicit permission. Of course, you want to make sure it's relevant to the receiver first, but this way, they don't have to actually opt out from anything if they don't want any more emails from you. Maybe not practical to companies managing thousands of emails on a list, but this is semi-standard practice at my small design studio. Curious what you might think of it?
Monday, July 6, 2009 by Al Iverson:
For those who disagree, think we should "just hit delete" or that a business card is "implied permission," think again: these are things that ACTIVELY cause blocking issues currently. Anything where your best defense is that the recipient is a complaining crybaby is a failure on your part; the fact of the matter is that the spam complainers hit the "report spam" button and that it's up to you to keep them happy enough that they don't hit the button. Pure and simple.
Thursday, September 3, 2009 by Tbone:
This is a tough one. I get unsolicited emails from people I handed my card to every day. I welcome those emails. I now have a chance to network with a host of people that I can in return share my information with on a regular basis. I get referral business with little effort this way, an I am able to send business to others this way. If I don't want to get their emails, I just unsubscribe or send a polite email to remove me. Think of all the trees we save by working with each other this way. I think we as U.S. business owners are not looking at the big picture by whining about too much in our email basket. This article is very self centered and about the writer being bothered to read emails. He could think outside the box and put those contacts to good use. We build our businesses by helping our fellow business neighbor, in return they help us. What better way than to allow someone to share info. Bottom line, I've got to get my name out somehow. In the past there were people trying to outlaw solicitaions via the U.S. Mail. Telemarketing has been restricted. No soliciting signs are on every office door. Why don't we ban newspaper ads and tv commercials. I can't stand commercials. I guess no matter what you do, someone is going to complain.

Leave a comment





Captcha