FTC CAN-SPAM / "Suppression" Lists; Public Comments Due TODAY! (4-20)

Email ^ | 4-20-04 | Computer Central

[Computer Central]

This is an email I recieved. Since it pertains to public policy of the FTC hearings concerning CAN-SPAM / "Suppression" Lists, I am posting this on the FR forum, - for your info and commments. This is of primary interest to those who use the Internet for their home businesses and network marketing. AND, it is a matter of having the CAN-SPAM legislation properly implemented, - but also, that it not be unnecessarily excessive.

To the point & to respond to the FTC, go here: Your Immediate Action Is Required
We need you to immediately respond to the FTC concerning the CANSPAM legislation. You Must Submit Your Comments Online, By April 20th

(edited) Dear ~~~~~~,

Charlie L~~ here from www.WebSiteER.com with some important breaking news that can have a serious impact on your web business.

You see, I just got an email from my friend Jim ~~ that he has agreed to let me share with you.

Here is what he had to say:

Time is short... and this is so important... that you must read every word of this update!

Unless we act now, there is a very good chance my affiliate program (and your opportunity to earn affiliate commissions) will go straight down the tubes.

Here's the story...

By now you've no doubt heard of the "CAN-Spam" Act intended to cut down on all the unsolicited email on the web.

What you probably don't know is that one of the aspects of the law that's still under review by the FTC involves "suppression" lists.

Now why should you care about this?

.... simple! Because, as I read it, this law will render affiliate marketing useless for both merchants AND affiliates.

Now, I'm not a lawyer (didn't play one on TV either), but as I have read it -- and based on the information I have gathered from reading and from people who know -- here's the bottom line problem for all of us...

If one consumer tells one affiliate or merchant that they never want to hear about a particular product (brand) EVER again, then EVERY affiliate AND the merchant must remove that consumer from their list whenever advertising that product.

The question on your mind should be "How in the #$%^ would that work?

Answer: Go to MySuppressionList.com and take a look... I for one don't see how you or I will be able to deal with it.

If the FTC interprets CAN-Spam strictly and enforces the use of "suppression" lists with affiliate programs it will make it virtually impossible for us to do business!

Bottom-line: if they do this, I honestly don't see how any of us will be able to market through affiliate programs for much longer and I will most likely be forced to shut down the eBookFire.com affiliate program :-(

You might be asking "Why haven't I heard about this before and is it too late to do anything about it?"

Answer: Because at this stage, though the law has passed, the interpretation and implementation of it by the FTC is still open for comment, we can do something about it... but we only have until April 20th to act.

My good friend, Marlon S~~, had made it super easy for all of us to take action. He's set up a website that explains how to respond to this crisis.

Please go to Marlon's site right now and follow the instructions there (he's made it real easy).

http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/

If you want additional information on this issue, here are some links to help you.

Another buddy, Paul M~~, has very clearly covered the problems of suppression lists in his blog: http://www.talkbiz.net http://www.talkbiz.net

If you want it straight from the horse's mouth, go see links on the actual ftc website:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/canspam.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/canspam.htm

Let's get into action now!

Jim ~~

PS - Understand that it is NOT TOO LATE to comment, but it certainly will be too late after April 20th

---

Hi, I'm back. I've written a letter I'm sending today to the FTC Commissioners. You can check it out by clicking here. ~~

Here it is: http://www.WebSiteER.com/special/canspam.html

I strongly urge you to click through on the links provided, and register your concern with the commissioners.

All the best,

Charlie L~~
~~~~~
~~~~~ (end of email)

---

Note: I am Charlie's mailing list. And, this message was properly labled and signed, and had a PO BOX address, etc. Seems to be fully CAN-SPAM compliant! http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/ http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/

[babyface00]

I agree with the proposed regulation.

Where do you "marketers" get off using other people's communication systems to promote your business without their consent? If you can't be successful without leaching off your customers, then maybe you need a new busines model.

[Blue Screen of Death]

As I see it, the only real question is... Should a spammer spend five or ten years in prison at hard labor before we execute him, or should we just execute them right away.

[dalereed]

"Should a spammer spend five or ten years in prison at hard labor before we execute him, or should we just execute them right away."

That's an easy one!

Execute immediatly!

[Computer Central]

Enforce the law against those who spam. Opt-in is not spam.

[Blue Screen of Death]

Execute immediatly!

You old softie you.

[babyface00]

Opt-in is not spam

This:

"If one consumer tells one affiliate or merchant that they never want to hear about a particular product (brand) EVER again, then EVERY affiliate AND the merchant must remove that consumer from their list whenever advertising that product."

sure doesn't sound like opting in to me.

[TalkBiz]

Actually, there are two separate major factions in this issue. True opt-in mailers and spammers. The campaign that was referenced in that email is being pushed by people who employ responsible opt-in practices. As in, the subscriber must actually request the email, knowing what they'll get before they sign up.

If you read the blog entry I wrote that's referenced in that email (http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php) you'll see that we're quite specific about that.

The concern in this case is about the damage that's going to be done if they apply rules that were intended to stop spam to publishers who don't engage in spamming.

The rules under discussion here will not do a thing to stop actual spam, by the way. They'll just drive the majority of free email publications in most market segments out of business.

For those who may wonder if I'm some sort of spam apologist... My definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. I don't care if it's commercial, religious, political, charitable, or a time traveller looking for parts for his Wayback Machine.

If it's bulk, and the list was compiled without the prior permission of the people on it, it's spam.


Paul Myers

PS: I think execution may be just a little harsh, but I've publicly supported the idea of jail time for spammers for 7 years.

[Computer Central]

FYI - Post 8 - TalkBiz

...two separate major factions in this issue. True opt-in mailers and spammers. ...The rules under discussion here will not do a thing to stop actual spam, by the way....

[Computer Central]

FYI - see #8 = The rules under discussion here will not do a thing to stop actual spam, by the way. They'll just drive the majority of free email publications in most market segments out of business...

[babyface00]

As in, the subscriber must actually request the email, knowing what they'll get before they sign up.

If they're requesting that their information be on a suppressed list, then obviously they changed their mind, or what they were getting wasn't what they though they would get when they signed up.

"If one consumer tells one affiliate or merchant that they never want to hear about a particular product (brand) EVER again, then EVERY affiliate AND the merchant must remove that consumer from their list whenever advertising that product."

In either case, it seems to me that "responsible" marketers would embrace consumers who tell them they don't want to hear about a product or service, saving those marketers from directing their efforts at consumers who aren't interested in the products they're pushing.

The idea that this is somehow such a burden, especially when the marketer is using a service (e-mail) that the consumer has to pay to obtain, makes me wonder how legitimate these marketers are.

[babyface00]

"They'll just drive the majority of free email publications in most market segments out of business..."

I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but most of us consider those to the electronic equivalent of junk mail already.

[Computer Central]

Excellent Post! - And Welcome to Free Republic!
And, Thanks for your comments!

[TalkBiz]

Sorry, Baby Face, but I'm not wasting my time playing your game. I've seen it literally thousands of times before. (I was a Usenet moderator for years.)

You're twisting meanings and statements to fit an irrational preconception. No amount of logic or good sense is going to sink in, and no matter how thoroughly your misinterpretations are shown for what they are, you're going to miss the point.

Say what you like. Have fun.

In the parlance of the Old Guard... **plonk**

[NRA2BFree]

Today is the 20th. Isn't it too late now?

[Computer Central]

Correct. This was the last day for commments to the FTC.

[babyface00]

As one who is on the receiving end of these e-mails, this is far more than a game to me.

Yes, I followed the links, and understand some of the issues you guys may have to deal with, but noticably absent is any reference to the article originally posted. Is it totally irrelvant or is the analysis contained therein just wrong?

You may not be the worst offender, but I'm sorry to tell you that most of us consider what you're sending to be spam the second we decide we don't want it anymore. The text of the posted e-mail quite specifically addresses this condition, and the inability or unwillingness of some in your industry to apparently want to deal with that.

For the third time, the central issue in this posted e-mail addresses:

"If one consumer tells one affiliate or merchant that they never want to hear about a particular product (brand) EVER again, then EVERY affiliate AND the merchant must remove that consumer from their list whenever advertising that product.

The question on your mind should be "How in the #$%^ would that work? "

I would love to understand how I'm misreading this, but it seems pretty clear to me. As a consumer, and one who is charged with maximizing organizations' investment in providing e-mail to employees, the analysis seems to be a reasonable expectation for behavior in your industry. If a consumer no longer wants to receive info regarding a product or from a specific company, than all those with affiliate relationships with that product or that company should honor their request.

The reaction following it makes your industry look either arrogent or incompetent. I suspect that if sending an e-mail incurred a significant cost to the sender, the industry would be bending over backwards to put these exact solutions in place.

It might surprise you to know that the industry for which I currently work is directly affected by this and other anti-spam legislation. I can't speak for everyone in the industry, but by and large, we want to only reach consumers who want to be reached, and any mechanisms that will honor consumer requests or improve their perception are very welcome. Yes, it doesn't cost anymore (right now) to send e-mail to consumers who don't want it, but at least in my industry, that only alienates and infuriates potential customers. We are already implementing solutions to address this - we aren't waiting for the legislation to pass.

While I'm not normally fond of legislation as a solution, in this case it does level the playing field by forcing everyone to incur the same costs to adopt the solution. If consumers benefit, as I believe they will, then in the long run so will legitimate businesses.

[NRA2BFree]

Correct. This was the last day for comments to the FTC.

Well nuts. I would have contacted them if I would have had time. I love to write any and all government agencies. ;-)

[NRA2BFree]

Btw, would you please let me know the outcome? Thanks!