Archive for the ‘Email and the Law’ Category
Posted by Rob Ropars on May 27th, 2010
As you know, I’ve been reporting to you on the Canadian government’s efforts to establish an anti-spam bill similar to the US CAN SPAM Act. Last year the bill, known as C-27 or the Electronic Commerce Protection Act was stalled during December. It has been pending resubmission in 2010.
Yesterday, Industry Minister Tony Clement tabled the bill as C-28 aka the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. After many months of debate and mutual compromise, the original bill’s wording and intent to restrain email marketing has become a little more laid back.
Under the current proposed legislation, the Canadian government would establish a spam-reporting center to work with government enforcement agencies with the power to shut down “sites.”
However, the following entities are EXEMPT from this law, in its current form: charities, political parties, pollsters and businesses with an established relationship with a recipient. Many critics are already complaining that this leaves the gates open to continued spam, as they did when the US CAN SPAM Act was passed and it was noted the law’s name itself says you “CAN SPAM” since you can email anyone once if you let them opt-out.
Obviously, until a law is finally passed, discussion on its impact can only be hypothetical. As it stands, if you are a permission-based email marketer, it doesn’t appear this bill would impact your email marketing efforts. We will of course continue to monitor this law and its potential impact and update you when new developments occur.
Posted by Rob Ropars on April 28th, 2010
In October 2009, an anti-spam bill was passed and became law in The Netherlands. The Dutch Independent Mail and Telecommunication Authority (also known as OPTA) is in charge of investigating spam complaints to determine their relevancy under the law.
The law itself outlines that no “advertisement” can be sent without the explicit prior request of a recipient. All Dutch citizens now have a website to report any potential violations directly to OPTA (www.spamklacht.nl) (note – “spamklacht” is Dutch for “spam complaint”).
How “spam” is defined is outlined on this site. Here is a rough English translation courtesy of Google (pardon some of its unintentionally humorous translations):
A spam message is an unsolicited message that you receive. Think of an e-mail or text message. The contents of the message determines whether there really is spam: it must commercial, charitable or are idealistic. The Telecommunications Act states that sending spam is prohibited in the Netherlands.
Which messages may be spam?
Spam messages are always sent via an electronic channel. You receive them as follows:
* Email
* Via a mobile phone (SMS or MMS)
* By fax
* By phone when you receive a call from an automatic call system (a computer)
* Through ‘social networking’ sites (eg MySpace, Facebook and MySpace)
* Through other electronic channels, the technology of the Internet is in full swing
Characteristic of a spam message is that you do not consent to the message received.
As you can see, all forms for unsolicited contact are included in this law. OPTA (as an independent agency) has reviewed 10,000 complaints submitted over the past 5 months (apparently 3x the number of complaints received a year earlier). So far they have issued 39 official warnings to businesses. OPTA has the authority to fine violators up to 450,000 EUR (about $611,000 USD) per case, and they have fined a few persistent spammers so far (one as much as 250,000 EUR).
From reviewing some of the articles and commentary, it appears that most people feel that this law is part of a growing worldwide effort to fight back against spammers. It is being reported that since the law was passed, spam generated from the Netherlands has decreased by more than 85%.
If your email marketing efforts include mailing lists with the addresses of Dutch recipients, you will want to ensure to review your requirements and liability regarding emailing them.
To learn more, click here
Posted by Rob Ropars on June 1st, 2009
By now you’ve probably heard that on April 24, the Canadian government introduced a bill that would serve as Canada’s answer to the US CAN-SPAM Act. Known officially as the “Electronic Commerce Protection Act” (herein ECPA), it strives to establish new legislation around commercial email communications, including rules for opt-in and opt-out procedures, sender identification, and consumer privacy. This process is still in flux so it’s best to monitor the situation and wait for the final provisions before acting. That said, the early details do highlight at least five key differences between ECPA and CAN-SPAM.
Taken at first glance, this bill is both potentially stricter than CAN-SPAM and somewhat ambiguous in some of the areas it covers. Let’s take a look…
Requires advance permission to send commercial email
One area of ambiguity is a reference to allowing messages to be sent if “implied consent” exists between the sender and the recipient during the 18 months prior to the email. If you’re maintaining a strict opt-in/permission list, then this shouldn’t be an issue. Otherwise there may be some question about whether you can email specific people.
CAN-SPAM differs in that technically the law doesn’t outlaw one unsolicited message. It essentially allows anyone to mail anyone else at least once (as long as you include and honor any opt-out requests). Some ESPs (including SubscriberMail) take a more stringent stance (more in line with ECPA) requiring clients to only send to permission lists. Assuming you and/or your ESP are following best practices and only sending permission-based emails, then you’re ECPA-compliant already.
Posted by admin on May 27th, 2009
An email newsletter (aka e-newsletter and eNewsletter) is often the cornerstone of an email marketing program. They are often used by companies to inform and educate their readers on various subjects of interest – anything from fashion to home improvement. Regardless of the industry, most newsletters serve one primary purpose: reader engagement.
Email newsletters typically contain multiple articles in order to appeal to a few different reader tastes. The main goal, more often than not, is to drive readers to your website to engage further with your company or brand. To get the most out of your e-newsletter efforts, plan it out like a 3-course meal.
The Appetizer
When a reader opens your message, you literally have seconds before they make the decision to spend time with you or move on to the next best thing. Using a sentence or two to entice the reader with a tease of what’s to come is one of the best ways to drive clicks. This is your appetizer – hopefully delicious enough to keep them wanting more, without making them full.
The Main Course
If readers click on the link you provided in your email to continue the meal, it means an order has been placed for the main course – your landing page. The obvious objective here should be to keep customers interested, engaged and ultimately satisfied. Make the reading experience easy on the eyes to keep your readers focused on finishing what they started. A landing page shouldn’t be a buffet of distractions, it should leave them licking their chops, using a wet wipe and singing to the tune of “mmm, mmm, mmm”.
The Dessert
Dessert is the ultimate customer temptation and should follow the main course quickly before second thoughts pop up. Of course its not for everyone, and should align appropriately with the overall goals and objectives of your eNewsletter. But for those who do see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the prospect of getting readers to buy after a satisfied main course is a good one. The verbiage at the end of your landing page, overall design, navigation choices, etc. should all lead your customers to a product or offering that is too tempting to pass up.
It’s important to remember that no 1 meal fits all. We all have different appetites so do some testing before you offer something that might give your readers food poisoning. By planning your email newsletter like a 3-course meal, you will be well on your way to a more satisfied, more full customer.
Posted by Dave McCue on April 15th, 2009
If you climbed into the ring against a heavyweight boxer, wouldn’t you want more than just a mouthguard to protect yourself from harm? Email marketers should think of themselves the same way—CAN-SPAM compliance is your mouthguard, and that heavyweight opponent (in the form of thousands of email subscribers) is poised to start swinging.
Plenty of email marketers wisely learn the ins and outs of CAN-SPAM laws early on in the process to protect themselves from harm, but too many mistakenly believe that adhering to the rules of CAN-SPAM means they don’t have to worry about SPAM complaints. This is far from the truth; as long as “Junk” and “Spam” buttons exist on every popular email client, any message being sent is at risk for SPAM complaints.
So what’s a marketer to do? Don’t get complacent just because you’re compliant; there are always gray areas.
Before every email marketing campaign, think carefully about any potential negative reactions the campaign might cause. Your standard approach may be enough to satisfy the law of the land, but the moment you set foot in a recipient’s inbox you are no longer in control. CAN-SPAM says you can email a recipient one time without his/her permission; does the recipient know that? Not only is it a mistake to assume that your audience knows what truly constitutes a SPAM email, but it’s even more unrealistic to believe they worry about the damage they could be doing to your reputation as a sender by marking your message as SPAM.
To put it simply, the best defense against SPAM complaints is common sense, but it’s an approach that is all-too-often pushed aside. Never forget that all of the email addresses on your mailing list, as well as any other addresses you “acquire,” represent actual people. Try their patience, and they’ll act the way people do.
To go back to the boxing analogy, if compliance is your mouthguard, let common sense be your headgear. If you find yourself justifying an email strategy by saying “technically, this is totally legit,” you’re going to want to stop and re-evaluate things. If it means sending less email—if it means sending to less people—it might help you take a lot fewer punches in the ring.
