Last week I received 2 pieces of blatant spam - both sent from NZ, and both emenating from companies who were large enough to know better.
As much out of curiosity as anything else I decided to complain about these.
After a fair bit of searching, I finally found a web page where I could submit my complaint. I had to register - that took 20 minutes, and when I was finally able to submit, the site broke down!
4 tries later and it finally worked. I was told that my complaint might or might not be investigated.
I have not heard anything since.
It's good to see NZ is serious about stopping spam!
If you want to try, the page is: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Anti-Spam-Business-Info?OpenDocument
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Christmas is coming, my Inbox is getting fat
I am subscribed to email newsletters from all over the world. It goes with the territory. So late November is always an interesting time, as marketers who have ignored my requests for their email newsletters all year wake up and flood me with special offers, solutions to my Christmas conundrums etc.
What fascinates me is the absolute lack of planning in this - nothing for ten months then three in a week. Did I sign up to receive it? Often, I can't remember. This year I bought my presents early, so they have missed my custom. Shame in some cases, as a few have some good ideas.
If they had spent the year teeing up their seasonal bonanza, I might have factored them in to my reckonings - spent a few dollars with them.
Most of these marketers are suffering from a syndrome that seems unique to email - the "that's what I do" syndrome. It does not exist in other media where campaigns are planned. Email marketers seem to assume that their behaviour is typical, and structure their actions around this assumption, in the process making the proverbial ass out of me and themselves.
Christmas gets earlier each year. If someone bothered to tell me in September that they would have some fantastic Christmas specials, and to watch out for them in November, then I might do so.
It is the besetting curse of email marketing that the immediacy of email, seems to have been assimilated into its planning. "Lets do this...now". A planned and structured campaign will always work better.
More on these Christmas emails shortly.
What fascinates me is the absolute lack of planning in this - nothing for ten months then three in a week. Did I sign up to receive it? Often, I can't remember. This year I bought my presents early, so they have missed my custom. Shame in some cases, as a few have some good ideas.
If they had spent the year teeing up their seasonal bonanza, I might have factored them in to my reckonings - spent a few dollars with them.
Most of these marketers are suffering from a syndrome that seems unique to email - the "that's what I do" syndrome. It does not exist in other media where campaigns are planned. Email marketers seem to assume that their behaviour is typical, and structure their actions around this assumption, in the process making the proverbial ass out of me and themselves.
Christmas gets earlier each year. If someone bothered to tell me in September that they would have some fantastic Christmas specials, and to watch out for them in November, then I might do so.
It is the besetting curse of email marketing that the immediacy of email, seems to have been assimilated into its planning. "Lets do this...now". A planned and structured campaign will always work better.
More on these Christmas emails shortly.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A cautionary tale
I heard a very sad story this week. We used to have a client - a small event, and we worked with them for 4 years. During that time we helped them build a database of interested parties – all properly opted in – of just over 10,000 people. It became a significant factor in their marketing and ticket sales, and the event went from strength to strength. We built them a professional website, and advised them on content, and driving traffic to it.
All in all it worked really well for all concerned. The organisers were not necessarily that expert in digital dialogue, but they were smart enough to appreciate what we were doing.
Then there was a change in the senior event management. We were not sure about working with the new chairman and decided to withdraw. We did however offer our advice for free to enable them to continue using email successfully – we also offered to guide them through the new legislation – but we never heard back from them.
It transpires they handed over the email side of things to their new web designers – similar field, so they were of course well qualified to manage it (not).
The new people changed everything – look, name etc and sent out a long and boring email under the new brand. Right at the bottom they asked the recipients to resubscribe – unnecessarily as all recipients were properly opted in, as well as having an exisiting business relationship with the event and its organisers.
They broke 2 major rules (and lots of minor ones):
1. You never use an email to deliver a major branding change – you might instead use an email under the existing brand to warn of the upcoming changes.
2. You never hide an important call to action – you make it the focal point of the email.
And this is where the story gets really sad. The database shrank from over 10,000 to around 300 – 4 years of work destroyed in one moment of autocratic management and professional incompetence – there’s no other way to describe it.
Shortly afterwards, the event was cancelled.
The moral of this story is simple. Email is too important to be handled by amateurs. Cost cutting in email will come back to bite you. If you are going to do it, do it properly.
All in all it worked really well for all concerned. The organisers were not necessarily that expert in digital dialogue, but they were smart enough to appreciate what we were doing.
Then there was a change in the senior event management. We were not sure about working with the new chairman and decided to withdraw. We did however offer our advice for free to enable them to continue using email successfully – we also offered to guide them through the new legislation – but we never heard back from them.
It transpires they handed over the email side of things to their new web designers – similar field, so they were of course well qualified to manage it (not).
The new people changed everything – look, name etc and sent out a long and boring email under the new brand. Right at the bottom they asked the recipients to resubscribe – unnecessarily as all recipients were properly opted in, as well as having an exisiting business relationship with the event and its organisers.
They broke 2 major rules (and lots of minor ones):
1. You never use an email to deliver a major branding change – you might instead use an email under the existing brand to warn of the upcoming changes.
2. You never hide an important call to action – you make it the focal point of the email.
And this is where the story gets really sad. The database shrank from over 10,000 to around 300 – 4 years of work destroyed in one moment of autocratic management and professional incompetence – there’s no other way to describe it.
Shortly afterwards, the event was cancelled.
The moral of this story is simple. Email is too important to be handled by amateurs. Cost cutting in email will come back to bite you. If you are going to do it, do it properly.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
And still it comes
Today we have heard about the latest mercy spam which is flooding our inboxes - poverty stricken East Europeans begging us to engage in dialogue and then hand over all our hard earned cash.
Ok - this spam comes from overseas, so our much vaunted anti spam act cannot be held accountable - but our major ISPs can - once again they are failing to prevent spam, despite:
a) investing heavily in anti spam software and
b) continuing to ignore the introduction of whitelists and authentication
OK, I know the sort of people who fall for this type of spam trick are also still trying to invest in Bridgecorp, but really, decreasing the amount of spam we get without impinging on legitimate email is not that hard - just a case of admitting the current solution is not working and accepting that there may be a better way.
Ok - this spam comes from overseas, so our much vaunted anti spam act cannot be held accountable - but our major ISPs can - once again they are failing to prevent spam, despite:
a) investing heavily in anti spam software and
b) continuing to ignore the introduction of whitelists and authentication
OK, I know the sort of people who fall for this type of spam trick are also still trying to invest in Bridgecorp, but really, decreasing the amount of spam we get without impinging on legitimate email is not that hard - just a case of admitting the current solution is not working and accepting that there may be a better way.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Test, test, test
Last week we did the unthinkable and sent out an email without a working unsubscribe link. At best it is poor practice, at worst, illegal!
How did it happen? We have a rigorous testing policy. Every email that goes out is tested for link functionality, browser rendering etc.
Well, it seems that one of our developers was making some upgrading changes, and during the process, the auto unsubscribe function slipped off the frame template. No-one noticed - after all, it gets input automatically, and is not even considered as part of the normal testing process.
It has been a very welcome wake up call - complacency is the enemy of great email - so we, and so should everyone, will revisit our testing procedures to ensure such an error never happens again!
How did it happen? We have a rigorous testing policy. Every email that goes out is tested for link functionality, browser rendering etc.
Well, it seems that one of our developers was making some upgrading changes, and during the process, the auto unsubscribe function slipped off the frame template. No-one noticed - after all, it gets input automatically, and is not even considered as part of the normal testing process.
It has been a very welcome wake up call - complacency is the enemy of great email - so we, and so should everyone, will revisit our testing procedures to ensure such an error never happens again!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
You musy be joking
After a very busy, trying, and blog-free week, a moment of humour which fully restored my good spirits!
Yesterday we sent out a newsletter on behalf of a client - audience approx 45,000 which is quite big by NZ standards.
One auto response showed just how confused the world of email is.
Your message has been blocked, it read, due to restricted contents. The restricted content is: to unsubscribe from this newsletter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The one thing just about every anti-spam law and best practice all over the world agrees on is that every email must include a working unsubscribe link. Yet this particular email client found it offensive and filtered our newsletter.
He was running a programme called MailScan - not one I have heard of before, and not one I could recommend if you want to receive emails!
Yesterday we sent out a newsletter on behalf of a client - audience approx 45,000 which is quite big by NZ standards.
One auto response showed just how confused the world of email is.
Your message has been blocked, it read, due to restricted contents. The restricted content is: to unsubscribe from this newsletter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The one thing just about every anti-spam law and best practice all over the world agrees on is that every email must include a working unsubscribe link. Yet this particular email client found it offensive and filtered our newsletter.
He was running a programme called MailScan - not one I have heard of before, and not one I could recommend if you want to receive emails!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Confusion reigns
Those who read this blog will know that I have been pretty critical of the Anti-Spam Act - so far from the perspective of spam volumes and ISP commitment to solving this.
Today I want to examine it from another perspective - that of the supposedly legitimate emailers in NZ.
Since the laws came in I watched with interest as email marketers and publishers have reacted in many different ways.
As recently as yesterday - one month later the laws took effect, I was receiving emails asking me to opt in, to opt out and so on in order to be compliant with e laws. I have also received quite of lot of completely unexpected and unwanted emails from publishers I have never heard of asking me to join their lists.
Amongst those who have tried to come to terms with the law, there are many who have failed to understand it - usually small companies who have seen email as a cheap and easy option. I hope they are not made an example of by the authorities because most of them are transgressing in many ways, but are clearly attempting to do it properly.
In fact, since the laws came in there has been zero publicity surrounding it - no warnings, no prosecutions, and with the exception of material released by Inbox, no comment about it at all.
I am all for improving the practices of legitimate email marketers and publishers - ultimately if standards are adhered to it will help in the war against spam, so wouldn't it be a good idea if the MED followed up their law with a review and some guidelines to help achieve this?
I suspect they won't!
Today I want to examine it from another perspective - that of the supposedly legitimate emailers in NZ.
Since the laws came in I watched with interest as email marketers and publishers have reacted in many different ways.
As recently as yesterday - one month later the laws took effect, I was receiving emails asking me to opt in, to opt out and so on in order to be compliant with e laws. I have also received quite of lot of completely unexpected and unwanted emails from publishers I have never heard of asking me to join their lists.
Amongst those who have tried to come to terms with the law, there are many who have failed to understand it - usually small companies who have seen email as a cheap and easy option. I hope they are not made an example of by the authorities because most of them are transgressing in many ways, but are clearly attempting to do it properly.
In fact, since the laws came in there has been zero publicity surrounding it - no warnings, no prosecutions, and with the exception of material released by Inbox, no comment about it at all.
I am all for improving the practices of legitimate email marketers and publishers - ultimately if standards are adhered to it will help in the war against spam, so wouldn't it be a good idea if the MED followed up their law with a review and some guidelines to help achieve this?
I suspect they won't!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
