Is This The Answer?

[tebmu]

I was just thinking about this and I wanted to get you all's opinion.

With this Can-Spam fiasco, it's getting harder and harder
for internet marketers to earn money online.

From what I understand, filters are 'tuned up' so high
that they are even blocking mail that doesn't come from
the same domain as the return address.

This means that affiliate marketers are having to find
other ways to promote products.

Do you all think that viral marketing is the answer...
the way to get around this problem?

I look forward to your responses.

Linwood

[John Scott]

With this Can-Spam fiasco, it's getting harder and harder
for internet marketers to earn money online.

I think you're confusing "spammer" with "Internet marketer".

[tebmu]

What exactly do you mean by that, John?

Linwood

[John Scott]

Marketing is more about sales. Sending out UCE is less about marketing and more about absence of an intelligent, effective marketing strategy.

Just my

[tebmu]

Interesting outlook...

So, if someone markets something to build an email list,
and then uses that list to make sales... is that not marketing?

(I'm not at all trying to fight with you... I am just interested
to hear more about your thought)

Thanks John!

Linwood

[John Scott]

No fight here. Just different perspectives.

Most spam I get has no trace of a viable marketing strategy. I mean, they purposely misspel words like viagra just to get past the spam filters, but then expect to get sales? Sales don't happen in the absence of credibility (trust), and spam doesn't instill trust. Especially the spam that is so obviously meant to decieve.

The spammers, for example, use deceitful subject lines, like "The information you requested" or, "Your account information" or even "Your Application Confirmation".

Now, how stupid are these people? When they use deceit to try to trick people into opening an email, do they really honestly think I'm going to trust them with my credit card info? And even if I trusted them with my credit card info, do I trust them to accurately and honestly describe the product they are selling? Hell no!

Why don't they try this: Go up to anybody on the street, say, "I'm a lying sack of shit, and I'd like to sell you something." See if anybody is interested.

[tebmu]

Oh... I see where your coming from.

You're right... spam has nothing to do with marketing.

I get all kinds of crazy spam soup in my inbox.

It is very deceiving.

I was actually referring to the government's Can-Spam
act, and how it is effecting legitimate marketers.

I don't condone spam... as a matter of fact, I tell all
of my subscribers to NOT even buy email lists.

Linwood

[DownloadChest]

I have a question...
My site sells all types of webmaster tools.
I am looking to send emails to webmasters about it, but how do I do this
Please someone enlighten me on how to do this without "spamming"

The line from marketing to spamming is very faded in my opinion.

[tebmu]

Hi DownloadChest,

The key to marketing by email and to COMPLETELY
avoid spam is to build an opt-in list and build a relationship
with those that subscribe.

I'm not sure of the exact business that you are in,
but you may find success by giving away some sort
of product or service for free, in exchange for email
addresses.

If you promote affiliate programs, you could use
a lead in page to get subscribers before sending
them to your affiliate website.

Those are just a couple of thoughts.

Talk to you soon.

Linwood

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by DownloadChest

I have a question...
My site sells all types of webmaster tools.
I am looking to send emails to webmasters about it, but how do I do this
Please someone enlighten me on how to do this without "spamming"

The line from marketing to spamming is very faded in my opinion.

Some of the best promotions we've done for BlueFind have been via email. The difference between spam and marketing is, we do our promotions via opt-in newsletters. There are opt-in newsletters on pretty much any subject out there, and you can buy placement in those for a reasonable fee, most of the time.

But if you just go build your own list, without the recipient opting in, that's spam.

[ceo]

DownloadChest,

1. If you do each email personally, MOST of the recipients won't take it badly. You need to be corteous and genuine in your personal emails. Do about 50 a day & you will have a good start by a month's time.
2. Advertise on Webmaster forums. If they have emails going out, advertise in them. This is your target audience...
3. Optin-lists as John suggests above, is a very effective option. Just research well...

[TerrelShumway]

Originally Posted by tebmu

I was actually referring to the government's Can-Spam
act, and how it is effecting legitimate marketers.

CAN-SPAM actually helps legitimate marketers. It makes the "rules of engagement" explicit. They are the same rules that every legitimate marketer has followed from the beginning.

The real challenge to legitimate marketers is that the spammers are working very hard to destroy the viability of email as a marketing medium. But this too shall pass. Creative marketers will find a way around this temporary set-back.

Originally Posted by DownloadChest

The line from marketing to spamming is very faded in my opinion.

It's crystal clear, IMO:

Originally Posted by Perry Marshall

Real marketing may be a lot of things, but one thing it
is not is 'Speed Seduction.' It is not the hustling of a quick
buck. Properly understood, it is the communication of your true
intent to solve problems you know how to solve, and match
your capabilities to the needs of others.

Marketing is the art and science of helping people who
need each other, find each other.

[JohnG]

CAN-SPAM actually helps legitimate marketers. It makes the "rules of engagement" explicit. They are the same rules that every legitimate marketer has followed from the beginning.

What do you mean by legitimate marketers?

* The CAN SPAM Act of 2003 regulates the transmission of commercial, transactional and relationship email.

* The Act does not explicitly prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial email in bulk.

This has lead many marketers, businesspeople and new comers to Internet marketing to believe, because of the how the rules have been written for Commercial Emailers it is okay to send unsolicited commercial email in bulk.

Why do I say this? Well as an example, look at the threads in this and other forums on the topic of email marketing.

The result is permission based email marketing is being undercut.

* The problem is compounded by the stance taken by so called "legitimate marketers."

Who are legitimate marketers? Members of the Direct Marketing Association? The same organization which says it is okay to harvest email addresses as long as you ask permission first.

(See the relevant notes in The Death of Email Marketing?.)

The organization which says spam is unsolicited commercial email usually sent in bulk using false headers, deceptive subject lines and without a valid working opt-out link.

This is a definition which it seems the big mail box providers like Microsoft, Yahoo!, Earthlink, AOL, Comcast and British Telecom agree with as per the recent Anti Spam Technology Alliance policy paper.

(I find it interesting British Telecom even signed onto this document given the EU rules on email marketing.)

This paper outlines among other things recommended best practices for bulk mailers (see pages 15 - 16)

* It does not mandate "affirmative consent" - the legal definition of consent in the United States, nor verified consent - as recommended by Spamhaus.org, confirmed consent - as recommended by the IETF or even unconfirmed consent - as approved of by the Email Service Providers Coalition.

True, the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 does allow Internet access services to set policies declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.

This means for example, Internet access services can refuse to transmit and so forth unsolicited bulk email as defined by Spamhaus.org.

At least the stance of ASTA is honest. Instead of saying we are against spam, what ASTA is saying is we are against prohibited commercial email.

We don't mind unsolicited bulk commercial email as long as you follow the rules and understand, we may block you from time to time if our customers object to a particular message.

So send us your permitted unsolicited commercial email. Want to avoid blocking, rate restrictions and so forth? Consider signing up with an accreditation service.

(For more on accreditation services read How To Survive The Email Wars.)

* In reality, spam is an Internet access service problem. While the big access services are saying to the consumer, we are against spam, which to the consumer means "any email I did not ask for and do not want," to those who wish to access their subscriber base, they are saying, just follow these rules. Want to minimize the risk of being blocked or rate listed? Sign up with an accreditation service.

(This is why the deliver-my-email campaign of SiteSell has merit. Why should a marketer who runs an affirmative consent mailing list have to sign up with an accreditation service? But watch, it will happen.)

At the same time, the service providers are saying, oh yes, we are opposed to folks using our networks to transmit unsolicited bulk email. But, the reality? Like gays in the US military. Don't ask, don't tell. We are in the business of selling bandwidth. If you follow the rules and don't send prohibited commercial email, we will sell you bandwidth.

How do I know this? As one source, read the testimony that Ronnie Scelson gave on May 20 before the US Senate Commerce Committee's hearing into implementation of the US law regulating commercial email.

Scelson got one of his mail servers white listed with AOL. AOL sent a note to AOL's upstream provider, MCI saying we are whitelisting this IP address based on their sending commercial email to prior customers. MCI comes back and ultimately says to Scelson, (who is not using MCI as his bandwidth provider), you can't use our networks to send unsolicited commercial email in bulk. As Scelson pointed out in his oral testimony, if AOL had not given the notice, MCI would never have known and there would not have been a problem. Even with the notice, there would not have been a problem, had I been an MCI customer. (He does not say this last point explicitly. It is implicit from his testimony.) Interesting what?

My point? The US federal law would have been ok if the DMA, ANA and AAAA were opposed to sending UCE in bulk. But, they are not.

So, we have "legitimate marketers," running around sending what the consumer considers to be spam, saying it is not spam, claiming the law allows it, undermining permission based email marketers.

We have the big box mail providers saying to the consumer we are opposed to spam, while at the same time, setting out guidelines for bulk mailers which do not require prior consent for sending commercial email.

We have service providers saying, don't ask, don't tell.

Mind you, I appreciate under 10% of unsolicited bulk commercial email (according to recent statisticst) is complying with the Act. This means if we were to get rid of the other 90% of unsolicited bulk commercial email, it would make the net a saner place, especially for system and network administrators.

* The other problems with the CAN SPAM Act of 2003?

We have the whole suppression mess, along with a number of other issues, including:

* the correct meaning of affirmative consent for co-registration, list rental, lead generator and lead brokerage services,

* do you need a name of the subscriber to have affirmative consent, (some say no, I say yes),

* whose mailing address goes in the message when you have multiple ads. (Some say the person who transmits the message. The Act requires the mailing address of the "sender." Sender is defined and can mean more than one person is the sender, meaning you have to include the email address of the advertisers.)

There are other issues. But, let's stop here.

The reality? As long as it is socially acceptable to send unsolicited bulk commercial email, we are going to have a 'big' spam problem.

The first step in fighting the war on spam? The DMA, ANA and AAAA needs to stop being hypocritical, saying oh yes, we are against spam, while in reality so defining spam as to make the statement a mockery.

Once we have a unified front on this issue, we can then make real progress in other areas. But, as long as it is socially acceptable to send what most people define as spam, this only makes it harder to bring the underlying societal problem under control of marketers acting responsibly, given the shared nature of the Internet.

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

[TerrelShumway]

Originally Posted by JohnG

What do you mean by legitimate marketers?

legitimate marketer = someone with a clue who respects his prospects and carefully targets his offers to those who at least might be interested.

I know you understand this because targeting is the most important factor in your direct-response copy pulling well.

From the material on your website, I think we are on the same page. I can not say that being a member of the DMA, AAAA or any organization makes you "legitimate" marketer or not. Maybe we need a new term. Any suggestions?

Originally Posted by JohnG

* The CAN SPAM Act of 2003 regulates the transmission of commercial, transactional and relationship email.

* The Act does not explicitly prohibit the sending of unsolicited commercial email in bulk.

I did not claim that CAN-SPAM will ever succeed in its aleged mission of "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing." In fact, I think that it is no coincidence that the chosen acronym suggests that you can spam.

Where CAN-SPAM does succeed is that it is easier for the small but clueful marketer to avoid a non-frivolous law suit by complying with one law rather than 50. Not a very good ROI, IMO, but our legislators would have spent the money somewhere else if not on CAN-SPAM.

Originally Posted by JohnG

(This is why the deliver-my-email campaign of SiteSell has merit. Why should a marketer who runs an affirmative consent mailing list have to sign up with an accreditation service? But watch, it will happen.)

Why? The law of supply and demand requires it. You pay for what you get.

The ultimate problem is that something that has real value (sending email) is relatively inexpensive. The law of supply and demand suggests that some invisible hand must eventually reach in and either reduce the value or increase the cost. If that means I have to sign up with an accreditation service and pay a penny per message -- Bring it on -- that will significantly increase the value of sending email by eliminating the spammers who are doing such a good job of destroying the value. And even at 10 cents per message, it's still the best media bargain since cable channels started charging money for late night air time (orignially, it was free -- just like email was before spam became a problem).

Originally Posted by JohnG

We have the whole suppression mess, along with a number of other issues, including:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the suppression mess is now out the window.

Originally Posted by JohnG

The reality? As long as it is socially acceptable to send unsolicited bulk commercial email, we are going to have a 'big' spam problem.

As long as the cost of delivering email is significantly less than the value, we are going to have a 'big' spam problem. Social cost is important, but money cost gets a lot more people to pay attention.

Originally Posted by JohnG

The first step in fighting the war on spam? The DMA, ANA and AAAA needs to stop being hypocritical, saying oh yes, we are against spam, while in reality so defining spam as to make the statement a mockery.

Once we have a unified front on this issue, we can then make real progress in other areas. But, as long as it is socially acceptable to send what most people define as spam, this only makes it harder to bring the underlying societal problem under control of marketers acting responsibly, given the shared nature of the Internet.

Amen.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by TerrelShumway

legitimate marketer = someone with a clue who respects his prospects and carefully targets his offers to those who at least might be interested.

I suggest it would be better, within the context of email marketing to say "solicited marketer" or "solicited emailer." This invokes the concept of the marketer's message being solicited by the reader, prospect, lead, etc.

Originally Posted by TerrelShumway

Where CAN-SPAM does succeed is that it is easier for the small but clueful marketer to avoid a non-frivolous law suit by complying with one law rather than 50. Not a very good ROI, IMO, but our legislators would have spent the money somewhere else if not on CAN-SPAM.

Please note paragraph 8 (b) of the Act and in particular paragraph (1) which reads in part:

"This Act supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto."

The California State Legislature presently has a law before it designed to replace the law which was superseded by the Act.

This law if passed and signed by the Governor will make it an offence to send or advertise in a commercial email where:

"(1) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party's domain name without the permission of the third party.

(2) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information.

(This provision does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information.)

(3) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message."

Quoting from legislative counsel's note on the bill:

"The bill would authorize the recipient of an e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of these provisions, the e-mail service provider, or the Attorney General to bring an action to recover actual damages and liquidated damages of $1,000 per e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of the provisions, up to $1,000,000 per incident, subject to reduction by the court, and would authorize the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff."

The bill was passed by the Senate and is presently before the Assembly. It was passed by the Judiciary Committee and has been sent to the Appropriation's Committee for a hearing on August 4, 2004.

For more details, go to this page http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/murray/ and look for SB 1457.

Also note, a number of States have passed legislation modeled on the Virginia legislation. This law reflects the Federal Act's permission of State's enacting laws which prohibit against sending of "falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message," but makes it easier to prosecute and creates tougher penalties.

Originally Posted by TerrelShumway

The ultimate problem is that something that has real value (sending email) is relatively inexpensive. The law of supply and demand suggests that some invisible hand must eventually reach in and either reduce the value or increase the cost. If that means I have to sign up with an accreditation service and pay a penny per message -- Bring it on -- that will significantly increase the value of sending email by eliminating the spammers who are doing such a good job of destroying the value. And even at 10 cents per message, it's still the best media bargain since cable channels started charging money for late night air time (orignially, it was free -- just like email was before spam became a problem).

On this point you and I will have to agree to disagree. Although I believe accreditation services will happen, I don't agree emailers should be obliged to sign up for an accreditation service to allow for email delivery.

Why do I say this? Let me quote in part from the FTC's report on the Feasibility of a Do Not Email Registry:

"3. A mechanism for shifting the cost of spam from the recipient to the sender would also contribute to solving the spam problem by addressing another fundamental problem, namely, the low cost of sending spam. The Commission does not presently propose a mechanism for accomplishing such a cost shift because numerous issues exist regarding who should pay for the cost of email, who should be paid, how much should be paid, and the mechanism for collecting and distributing such payments. In addition, cost-shifting would require a more fundamental Internet protocol change whereas authentication standards are at the point where they can be tested and implemented in the near term."

(See page 1, footnote 3 of the FTC's report.)

Therefore, in implementing accreditation services as part of any authentication scheme, we need to be careful how we proceed.

Recommended, perhaps in certain cases. Required? No. Although I suspect for all practical purposes, certain mailbox providers may require it.

In my view, the whole exercise is a bit phony. Why do I say this?

It is generally understood service providers and access services could put a real dent in spam, if collectively they decided:

* the rule is "you may not send unsolicited bulk email" and to prove the email was solicited, the emailer was required to use a closed loop verification process;

* to actually enforce this rule and not simply to pay it lip service; and,

* among other things to impose rate restrictions on users, until a reputation was established, with perhaps the process being expedited upon a new domain holder enrolling with an accreditation service.

Until recently, many service providers and access services within North America have been lax in enforcing best practices for stopping spam. Even with spam closing in on 80 - 90% (some suggest the real numbers are higher) of total email volume, service providers continue to allow spammers to use their services.

Originally Posted by TerrelShumway

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the suppression mess is now out the window.

No. This is a common misunderstanding. With the publication of the FTC's report on the National Do Not Email Registry, the Commission met it's statutory obligation under section 9 of the Act.

The suppression issue arises due to the definitions of commercial electronic mail message, initiate, procure, sender in paragraph 3 (1) of the Act and how the FTC will interpret these definitions within the context of the opting out obligations as found in paragraphs 5 (a) (3) and (4) of the Act.

Except as to the Do Not Email Registry, the issues as outlined in The FTC Wants To Hear From You are very much on the table.

Originally Posted by TerrelShumway

As long as the cost of delivering email is significantly less than the value, we are going to have a 'big' spam problem. Social cost is important, but money cost gets a lot more people to pay attention.

Perhaps, although the marketing community needs to understand, if the combined efforts of blocking Port 25, rating, plugging open spam relays, implementation of sender authentication, along with accreditation and reputation services and rigorous law enforcement do not make a significant dent in the overall spam problem, people will likely see:

* a national do not email registry long before implementation of paid email; and/or

* major amendments to the legislation, including prohibiting unsolicited commercial email.

(Microsoft has backed away from paid email. Yahoo! is doing beta testing of something called Goodmail. However, Microsoft's Penny Black proposal of hashing - requiring CPU cycles remains on the table - and may be implemented if agreement can be reached within the Anti Spam Technology Alliance.)

The consumer has begun to walk away from email, even solicited commercial email. Many users are simply "pissed." Consumer response rates began to decline significantly around March of this year.

This will not change until industry makes a real dent in the problem within short order. In my view the market has maybe until January 2006 at the outside, although probably much sooner.

If not, we will see more actors simply abandoning email in favor of other modes of communication.

On this point:

* RSS is about to take off. Although it won't replace email, it will break email's monopolistic hold, with quality newsletter publisher's finding it of significant value.

A recent white paper issued by MediaThink titled 'Not Just for Nerds: RSS - The Next Big Thing Online' simply confirms what many marketers have been saying for a while now.

* As a subset, some marketers may like this:

Email delivery without the SMTP protocol.

(You will see more of this. In reality this is just a mocked up version of RSS, painted as email, but still it shows what is going on.)

John Glube

[doctorpollo]

Originally Posted by DownloadChest

I have a question...
My site sells all types of webmaster tools.
I am looking to send emails to webmasters about it, but how do I do this
Please someone enlighten me on how to do this without "spamming"

The line from marketing to spamming is very faded in my opinion.

I visited your site and your product looks good.

But before I buy it, I would like you to answer 1 question.
I dont think this is asking much, and one can't be to sure when buying online and sine I've already been duped by one of your competitors selling the same product I would like to inquire first.

By the way, I have sent you 2 emails now and have not got an answer,
possibly you do not check email very often?

Here is my question?

Q: You say you have 10,000+ Website Templates online for instant access and download.
Do you have all 10,000+ Website Templates online once I purchase
that I can download right away? Or do I have to wait for updates over a 1 year period to get them all. That is how I was duped by your competitor and did not find out until I bought, this site I am talking about is,
http://www.thetemplatepackage.com
I will say they did give me a refund, since they also claimed to have
10,000+ Website Templates online with instant access, but had less than
half that inside the members area. Clearly a Lie and false advertising.

Please respond,
If you do in fact have 10,000+ Website Templates,
I will buy your product.

Awaiting your reply

John

[doctorpollo]

Think this guy will ever reply!

NOPE, ANOTHER BAD SITE WITH BOGUS CLAIMS IT LOOKS LIKE!

BEWARE FOLKS :?: :roll:

Originally Posted by doctorpollo

I visited your site and your product looks good.

But before I buy it, I would like you to answer 1 question.
I dont think this is asking much, and one can't be to sure when buying online and sine I've already been duped by one of your competitors selling the same product I would like to inquire first.

By the way, I have sent you 2 emails now and have not got an answer,
possibly you do not check email very often?

Here is my question?

Q: You say you have 10,000+ Website Templates online for instant access and download.
Do you have all 10,000+ Website Templates online once I purchase
that I can download right away? Or do I have to wait for updates over a 1 year period to get them all. That is how I was duped by your competitor and did not find out until I bought, this site I am talking about is,
http://www.thetemplatepackage.com
I will say they did give me a refund, since they also claimed to have
10,000+ Website Templates online with instant access, but had less than
half that inside the members area. Clearly a Lie and false advertising.

Please respond,
If you do in fact have 10,000+ Website Templates,
I will buy your product.

Awaiting your reply

John