Blog

Thinking Aloud On B2B Email Marketing Ethics – Is Permission Based & Opt in The Only Way To Go?

Posted Apr 06th, 2009 at 10:45 AM and seen 32 times

First time here? Start exploring below.

ReadyContacts is a B2B Marketing Database 2.0 solutions company Learn more.

Qualify target accounts. Speak to role-based decision makers. Start with our FREE TRIAL.

Subscribe to our RSS Feed & follow us on Twitter.

Thinking Aloud On B2B Email Marketing Ethics - Is Permission Based & Opt In The Only Way

I’ts an important question to reflect on before giving a go-ahead on any email marketing campaign. Personally, I hate spam as much every other person out there, I like the concept of using purely opt in lists or double opt in lists to run email campaigns but practically I also know not everyone can build perfect opt in or permission based lists and rely solely on them. I am not against email marketing on custom built targeted email lists just as I’m not completely opposed to cold calling and believe they can both be effective “if done right“. I also realized I just made a rather bold move defending the use of non-optin lists to send out emails to companies as a marketing strategy and I just set myself up for a lot of flak for making this statement. But before we go straight to the comments section below think about this question. How do you perceive spam and when do you consider an email spam?

When I get an email which is completely irrelevant to what I do, who I am and what I may be interested in, it’s no longer email to me…its spam.

I am a B2B marketer (at least when I am in the office and at work I am)
I generate leads, look for new ways to drive more customers towards our business and manage marketing projects (its what I do)
I am interested in anything that helps me become a better marketer, helps me drive more customers, helps the business serve customers better (is some of what interests me)

If I get an email from an unknown company and an unknown person with an email on “Join Us For The IT Security Systems Configuration Training Seminar” that is SPAM simply because its irrelvant to me and I could not care less about that IT Security training seminar as a marketing manager. Similarly drawing the parallel to cold calling, I would be more than a little annoyed being called and invited to attend a conference on improving manufacturing processes or called by someone selling an accounting software solution. On the other hand, if I received an email again from an unknown company and an unknown person introducing on “Introducing our new instant landing page creation software for lead gen managers” I dont look at it as spam. Even if I’m not interested in buying it, the way I look at it is ‘it was addressed to the right person in our company’. It’s within my area of responsibility to evaluate such an application and its within my subject of interest as a B2B marketer. Similarly, I’m glad to talk to someone who cold called looking to see if our compnay was interested in a listing on their new B2B Marketing online directory even if at the end of the call we decide not to or that we are not interested at this point. It’s still within my area of responsibility and still related to my area of interest.

In the first case I would say if the company had sent their email to someone responsible for our IT security, their email would have at least been read if not replied to. By sending it out to the marketing manager it was treated as spam. So is it spam when you dont know the sender or the senders company and you haven’t said you would like to receive an email from them? Or is it spam when even someone you have allowed to email you sends you something that is completely out of your sphere of interest? If you blocked out every new business contact that you have never heard of before from connecting with you through any channel… could you be missing out on some great opportunities?

I still believe in trying to generate the best possible opt in and permission based lists and doing everything possible to get more opt in email addresses and build a strong internal list. I also believe that its not blasphemous to run an email campaign on a very well built target list where you know the person is the right person to connect with and if its done right. What would you define as spam? Whats not considered spam? Is knowing the sender and providing permission the only criteria or is there more to it?

Sherin

I am so glad to see a new line of thought on this topic. I have recently joined an organisation and was surprised to discover that more than 95% of our database contacts (incl. a lot of our current clients) have not opted-in. Ever since, I have been in a quandry on whether we're following the right practice and yet one can't completely do away with an investment made in the last 12 years.

julianb

I remember reading somewhere a while back- 'Irrelevance is the new Spam'.

Indiemark

Neil - If you haven't already done so, I strongly encourage you to submit this perspective to the leading DM pubs (DMnews, Direct, B2b, Target, and the like). I think they will find that your take is fresh and honest.

Kinexus Internet Ltd

once again you have outdone yourself. The information that you provide is immensely helpful!

Bill C

Neil: Enjoyed your thoughtful discussion of a common dilemma. One distinction that I've found useful is the "third party referall";commercial messages that immediately acknowledge my subscription to a B2B publication, attendance at a trade show , or membership in an industry association tells me that there may be value here, or at the very least, that the marketers have done their homework. I don't object to receiving these emails, and I believe that it's an acceptable practice to send them out, providing you can document a likely business relationship.

Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts

Thanks Bill. "Third party referral" is useful. I've had some feedback for this discussion on twitter etc where some believe the CAN-SPAM law states you cant contact a company you have had no prior business relationship with before so everyone should work within these limits period. While I completely respect that ... there is a lot of good feedback on how someone can connect with a completely new company by being careful not to "spam" them and giving them clear "opt out" options within the message body.

Patrick B

I appreciate the open nature of this conversation. Isn't Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder after all?

It is so refreshing to hear your thoughtful opinion expressed regarding relevance's value in determining the legitimacy of UCE.

The hyperbole from the “Opt In or Repent Sinner” that emanates from the permission based cult followers is mind numbing at times. There is a place for UCE especially when it is delivered to the right audience with clear subject lines, honest value propositions in the offer, clear sender ID, and rigorous opt out management.

It is interesting to me that you still needed to hold your nose a little before braving the facts. But to your credit, logic and reason seems to be worth the risk of offending the powers that be.

Kristine

Excellent blog. I'm constantly reinforcing the need for targeted lists and quality content to improve an email program. Unfortunately more businesses have gone the route of mass sending because its easier.

I wrote a blog in January about this very topic! http://blog.emaildirect.com/index/2009/01/circuit-city-vs-random-cycling-website-who-wins.html

There's value in spending the time to do things the right way...and that value does come in the way of $$. Targeting generates a higher ROI.

Kristine Dobson
VP Business Development
www.EmailDirect.com

Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts

Thanks Kristine, knowing the exact roles of those on target lists and how they will perceive the emails is critical. Your blog post is a great example of how perception of the receiver can be positive or even damaged by how the email program is planned.

sthornton

A pertinent and relevant email or phone call from an unknown would fall outside of the realm of spam in my book. But admittedly, that's my personal preference, being a marketer - and not everyone views "solicitation" in the same rosy light.

But from my perspective, it's merely an attempt to make an introduction, and if it's done right (well targeted, and/or customized for ME), it's not intrusive, nuisance or any other derogatory word associated with spam.

I don't dispute the value in permission-based marketing, and that it's largely a best practice to appease clients and prevent liabilities... but from where I sit, there's a fundamental danger in putting the "permission-based blinders" on; if you only target folks who already know you (and have given you permission to keep in touch) how do you ever get net-new suspects/prospects into the top of your funnel?

Do you rely on traditional media, advertising, word-of-mouth and the blogosphere alone to position yourself in the category, hoping the right kind of people are finding you and reaching out?

If you can systematically target those folks you feel are potentially good fits and tailor a message to them, you have a huge opportunity to invite more folks into your permission-based lists - or if your initial call/email hits the mark and resonates - somewhere even further down the funnel. But again, as you've stated, it has to be done right - otherwise, in the eyes of the recipient, it's just spam.

Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts

@sthornton thats great perspective on this topic. I agree there is a lot more to what should be considered or treated as spam than just who its from and relying only on those in your permission list like you said keeps you from exploring new opportunities. As someone else pointed out to me on Twitter, sending emails too frequently can also be considered spam, sending emails long after building the permission based list can also be looked at as spam.