I think the critical difference is in the idea that people will be marketed to and they should just accept it. I find this idea just plain wrong. I find marketing to be an invasion of my world which, most of the time, distracts me from reality and the moment. Now this could be due to the quality (or lack of) but for the most part I find it an annoying part of my world.

Yes, there are certain social contracts where people accept that marketing will take place (for example television, magazines, websites) and we accept it because, and this is crucial I think, we get something we want out of it. The company who publishes the magazine I read or the television show I want to watch gets money which they use to keep making the product I want. Key point being That I Want.

But I don’t want viagra (not yet anyway . Oh, and just what the hell is this acai berry I keep hearing about? When I get unsolicited email, meaning email sent from people or companies I’ve never heard of or done business with, I don’t get upset or anything but I do promptly delete it and add the sender to the spam blockers I use. Always.

Why? So I don’t get sent email from that sender again. Plus, it has the added benefit of helping to block that sender for other users of the spam protection service. And I’m not alone in how I handle spam either. Most of the spam providers crowd source their flagging and in my experience it works. Good.

Which, to me, really begs the question of why companies think it’s a good idea. I understand why spammers would but it’s such a narrow time that an email provider will accept email from a spammer that it’s almost not worth it. Hell, on bad lists I’ve tried to send, I’ve been blocked completely after as little as 5,000 bad emails. That to me makes no sense. Why bother?

That being said, I don’t think it’s any more acceptable to send bulkmail or cold call people than it is to send spam. For direct mail I’m completely stymied in how to block it but the cold calls have pretty much ceased completely (for me anyway) since the Do Not Call list was put in effect (yes, I’m on it).

Your point about email being more convenient than cold calls is true but completely false when compared to direct mail. Hell, the two shouldn’t even be compared because most mail comes once per day and is usually only checked once while email is nearly instant.

So, no, having an issue with abusive marketing isn’t because of cost of stamps or anything like that. It’s the invasion. The intrusive and unsolicited nature that’s irritating.

Of course none of this has to do with the above article; except for the relation to being a good email marketer contrasted with my personal feelings.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this, Paul. I’ve never had the opportunity to pick the brain of a pro spam email marketer before. Kudos on being upfront on that by the way.

Eric

Clearly the F-U says you are anti spam, but I suppose destroying trees and filling up landfills with direct mail is OK? Or perhaps you prefer a cold call campaign that that fills your voicemail full of useless messages and interrupts your day with sales people calling?

You are GOING to be marketed to as a business decision maker, email is both more convenient to seller AND buyer, is far better for the environment, and less interrupting than sales calls… yet everyone is so offended by email as a cold marketing tool? Why exactly is this? Is it because I didn’t pay for a 44 cent stamp? Why is it I don’t need “opt in” for direct mail and tele-prospecting, but do with email (and as we all know opt-in could mean anything)?

You are of course in the majority with your view, but why do you have that view? It simply doesn’t make sense. I’d be interested in your reply.

I’ve never used a temporary email address myself, but I’ve always imagined I might use it for initial sign-up of a service when they require an email address (and I don’t want to give them mine). I guess in the those circumstances I would be happy not to receive followup emails from them.

And I certainly can’t argue with the “too risky to keep them in” part. Thanks again.

One example would be that if you use an email service that sends email on your behalf, Net Atlantic for example, they will flag, and actually terminate, your account if you upload lists with temporary domains on it.

Another, and more likely, would be spam profiling. The way it’s been explained to me is that some of the temporary email providers moonlight as spam traps whereby emailers that send to them get “flagged” as spammers. This sucks because when you send the email to Yahoo, for example, your email gets thrown in the Spam folder because your list has no integrity to it (as far as Yahoo is concerned).

Granted, the above doesn’t apply to every situation so I always fall back on recipient intent with the question; “do they want to hear from you?”.

By their very nature temporary email addresses are useful because the owner doesn’t want to hear from you. They’re throw away accounts; hell, it’s in the term “temporary email addresses”. But add in the threat of raising your spam score and it’s too risky to keep them in the list.