I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Are you being bombarded with companies trying to get your permission to keep sending you information after the spam act comes into force next week?
Infotech had an interesting article on the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act.
The key point was this one:
“If companies have been in the habit of communicating electronically with customers and prospects on a regular basis then they have inferred consent to send them e-mail, and there is no need for them to go out again and ask for it.”
Do you agree with that?
Some interesting examples of how companies have communicated. Compare the extracts in these two examples:
Telecom:
Last chance! Opt in and go in the draw for an amazing travel prize
From time to time we like to send you news and offers we think will be of interest to you.The Unsolicited Electronic Message Act 2007 comes into force on the 5th September, so we need your consent to send you promotional emails. You need to opt in to continue to receive promotional messages from us after this date.
Click here to opt in now, it will only take a minute
Air New Zealand:
Confirm you want to keep receiving our Special Offers and go in the draw to win 1 of 20 prizes of 2,000 Airpoints Dollarsâ„¢
You are currently receiving Special Offers emails from us, including offers like the recent Super Kids Fly Free and the 2 for 1 Mother’s Day offers. However, to continue receiving these Special Offers in the future we need you to confirm your consent.
We need your consent because there’s a new legislation coming into force on 5 September 2007, which is designed to prevent unwanted spam emails, and we want to ensure that we treat your email address responsibly. Unfortunately, without your consent we will no longer be able to email you these Special Offers.
Which one makes you feel like you are loosing something and which one feels like you are giving something away. Which one brings in emotion?
Very interesting corporate communications case study.
blog
I wondered why heaps of companies were sending these out! Duh!
I like the second one better because it specifies what exactly I am getting (e.g. mother’s day specials). Telecom’s ’special offers’ sounds spammy.
Also Air New Zealand confirms you are already getting this stuff, so if you’re happy with it so far, chances are you’ll continue.
My mum got an offer from Genesis Energy which I would completely ignore, but she ran to the computer to signup… saying, ‘I figure I can just keep deleting the emails when they arrive’. I think they followed the Telecom line and attract a bunch of people who are signing up purely for the prize, whereas Air NZ is encouraging people to signup for the content. Those would be the people I was after!
I don’t think it’s overreaction, I actually respect that they are making the move and checking that people still want to receive their emails.
But I agree it’s all in the delivery. The best ones I’ve received have been friendly, about the content, and actually haven’t mentioned the new Act at all.
I think this one (below) is the worst I’ve seen - very negative!
“By now I am sure you have heard about the new Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 which is coming into force on September 5th 2007!
The impact? Unless you confirm that you are OK to receive all the information we send you about the events we are organising going forward, we will not be able to email you any more - ever again!
It will only take less than a minute to give your consent and (should you want to) up-date your details: just click here!”
I like the Air New Zealand one especially because they don’t sound too desperate, are polite and not being pushy. The message is clear, concise and to the point.
I personally like ads/promotions that try not to hard sell. Something that leaves consumer to make up their own mind and not try to brainwash them. But again, I guess that’s marketing. It appeals to some, doesn’t to a few and the rest don’t really care.
That’s my two cents.
Yes, an interesting study in corporate communications all around…
Obviously, they can’t send you an email, asking you to confirm that you still want emails, after Sept 5th.
What I would do, if I were them, is send you an email now stating :
“because of our existing relationship, which we value, we are going to continue to assume that you welcome our emails, unless you respond to this email and inform us that you would like us to stop” ( by clicking on this link etc etc ).
That way, they are affirming the existing relationship, and if you are happy to proceed with that relationship, you are not required to do anything at all, which is obviously not onerous to their existing customers …
Hi John, I think that is not allowed as it is opt out rather than explicit opt in as is required by the legislation. Rod
All great comments and I certainly support both Telecom and Air New Zealand for their proactive approach to the law.
The SPAM act is certainly one of great interest and most companies in NZ are not overreacting, running the risk of implied permission due to business relations is one I’d rather not test, unless you’re using Aftermail or a similar archiving tool, how far back can you date your records of a “business interactionâ€! Maybe you sent them an email or maybe an overzealous staff member put that address in your database…
The safest way is to follow the paths of Telecom, Air NZ, Genesis and many other with the confirmation style of email!
I sure don’t want the $500k fine.
An interesting note on the act is that it covers not just bulk email newsletters but your day-to-day emails!!
Note this maybe from a biased view… after all I am in the business of E-marketing!
I suspect that the problem for larger organisations is that they cannot be sure that they have *any* form of consent (express, deemed or inferred - the three categories in the Act) because their databases have been built up over time and they have either not recorded or not kept that info. So, they reason, it is simpler just to email the whole database now rather than attempting to make an assessment for each person. A delicious irony that anti-spam legislation has caused people to get in quick and spam us all while they still can.
Also, it is not quite so simple as Infotech makes out. 1. You have to be able to show that the relationship you have means that consent can reasonably be inferred for the type of information you are sending (so you can’t infer consent to send just any old spam); 2. Assuming that someone has consented because you have been sending them email for years and they have not told you to stop, is not consistent with the opt-in regime that the Act is promoting. Therefore one can’t be sure that DIA (who will be enforcing this Act) will allow that as justification for inferring consent; 3. Onus is on you to prove that you have some form of consent if someone complains, so it is perhaps understandable that tall poppies like AirNZ and Telecom don’t want to take the risk that they might not be able to prove consent without an active opt-in.
The other thing that I think is a bit strange under the Act is that you *can* actually send email to anyone you like (without any form of prior consent) provided that the material you send is relevant to their position, their email address has been conspicuously published and they haven’t at the same time said they don’t want to receive email at that address. So, it seems to me that I could send information about my my widgets to as many company widget buyers as I like after obtaining their non-prohibited email addresses from their respective company websites.
The DIA’s guidance indicates that this quote is a misconstruction, or, at least, misleadingly simple. It says: “If you are using an existing database of addresses and you are not sure if you have the express consent of the people listed you will need to obtain it (even if you have been sending electronic messages to these customers for years)”
http://www.antispam.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Anti-Spam-Business-Info?OpenDocument
Francis wrote:
The DIA’s guidance indicates that this quote is a misconstruction, or, at least, misleadingly simple. It says: “If you are using an existing database of addresses and you are not sure if you have the express consent of the people listed you will need to obtain it (even if you have been sending electronic messages to these customers for years)â€
Hmmm, it seems to me that DIA is going *too* far. The Act clearly envisages that you can have inferred consent and you *might* have that by virtue of “sending electronic messages to [one of your] customers for years”, particularly if that customer has replied at any stage. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if the information is relevant to the recipient’s position and their email address has been conspicuously published without a prohibition on receiving email to that address, then you can send it anyway. That again makes the DIA statement a bit strong.
I agree with the skinny blog that I’ve now got more email from these outfits than I’ve had all year. I also really hate the bribery going on in the form of prizes to keep me on.
Check out http://www.skinny.co.nz/2007/09/03/spam-act-update/#comments
Yes, I’m getting heaps of this Spam.
On a related note, I love the idea that Mauratio from geekzone.co.nz raised about improving his business card to reduce spam.
For those situations where you put your business card into a bowl in order to win a prize, but where you don’t want the subsequent barrage of spam and instead only confirmation you’re the winner… Put this on your card:
“Please do not contact me with additional information about your products or services”
Presumaeably under the new anti spam act, this prevents them from legitatemately spamming you?
( See http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/3688 )
I’ve had one message that says “to remain in contact with us, you need do nothing. If you want to cease contact, return this mail with ‘unsubscribe’ in the header.”
This seems to run against the “opt-in” spirit of the law - except that it is a company from whom I have received many, often useful, emails; I have dealt with them by phone and I know they are a genuine business and what they do is germane to my job. So I have no complaint about this approach personally.
Another, again from someone I’ve dealt with many times in the past, is to much the same effect, except it explicitly uses the magic word “inferred”. “Since your name is in my database, I have presumably conversed with you by email or we have met in person and I have your business card. So I infer that you have given me permission. However, if you wish no longer to hear from me…”
I think the first is technically just on the wrong side of the law and the second manages to be just on the right side. It’s certainly a friendlier approach.
The weirdest one I’ve received is from the company that supervised fire drills in a building I no longer occupy. They offer me the enticement of hearing, in future about such services as “fire extinguisher training”. I can’t recall ever having been offered such training before; their emails have been limited to “last week’s drill was 30 seconds slower than the last one and some people stopped to pick up their lunch.”
What worries me is that the company that carefully counted me in and out of the building at every drill is apparently unaware that I haven’t been there for over a year! Or maybe they’re hoping for my business where I am now.
I’ve also been inundated with mail to either opt-in or opt-out - either way is fine by me. I’m still getting heaps of mail to enlarge my penis or marry a Russian - that’s unlikely to ever stop.
What I think is wrong about the act is that businesses who exist solely online; do all their advertising on-line; and perhaps at times rely on their existing clients (those they have an inferred relationship with) forwarding on emails to their friends of offers, or valuable deals. This is expressly illegal under the new regime - not from the business’ point of view (because they are sending it to a recognised client) but to the clients POV…they will be breaking the law.
So, no more viral campaigns I’m afraid, as you only need one person to complain to get everyone in a heap of trouble - and don’t we think that a $200,000 fine (max) for an individual is going a bit too far?
I have outlined my thoughts on http://www.skinny.co.nz and on a comment on http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz.
[...] companies trying to comply with their legal advisors interpretations of what the act means (see here for some commentary). It has been interesting to observe the wildly differing legal advice that has [...]