“Our terms of use specifically require that all members abide by all local, state and federal laws, including CAN-SPAM and we make sure to educate our customers accordingly,” says an email I received today.
That’s a red flag. When you brag to me about CAN-SPAM compliance, it tells me that you need something to brag about other than permission, other than clear and direct consent.
Sure, there’s spam out there that is far from legally compliant. But there’s such a thing as legally compliant spam, and it’s just as unwanted. What governs your ability to get your mail delivered? Permission, not just legal compliance. And legal compliance isn’t a substitute for permission.
If you’re bragging about CAN-SPAM compliance, it tells me that you either don’t understand how email reputation works, or you’re attempting to deceive, because you know you don’t have a solid level of permission involved.
I’m not sure which is worse, but either way, it means something
doesn’t smell right. And in this case, the rest of the email message did nothing to allay my concerns. There
was absolutely nothing about permission. No mention of clear consent. Just a
lot of talk about legal compliance, and how anybody can opt-out, and we suppress X
million addresses, and how they’re leaders on the lead generation and
prospecting front.
Really? Leaders? Without permission? I don’t think so.
ExactTarget Feed
Comments for Legal Compliance: Poor Permission Substitute