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

By: Sherin

Sherin — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:17:23 +0000

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.

By: Gate opener

Gate opener — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:15:11 +0000

Thank you for your info

Have a nice day
ropes mieds
______________________________________________

By: Finally, A Step Towards Permission-Based B2B Email Marketing

Finally, A Step Towards Permission-Based B2B Email Marketing — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:38:31 +0000

[...] visits, etc. But is email sacrosanct? Most B2B salespeople would say no, some would say “if it’s relevant, it’s not spam,” but I’m willing to bet the recipients would [...]

By: Indiemark

Indiemark — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:23:15 +0000

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.

By: julianb

julianb — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:56:29 +0000

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

By: Kinexus Internet Ltd

Kinexus Internet Ltd — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:30:42 +0000

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

By: Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts

Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:55:16 +0000

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.

By: Bill C

Bill C — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:35:44 +0000

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.

By: Patrick B

Patrick B — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:35:27 +0000

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.

By: Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts

Neil Sequeira - ReadyContacts — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:41:03 +0000

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.