How Mass Email Works

Agreed. I think people are starting to go overboard with the term "spam", to be honest.

CAN SPAM above all else requires the obvious opt-out. If you have that, and you honor it, then you're good to go for the most part.

CAN SPAM, btw, is aptly named - follow the rules, you can spam. Another fabulous piece of legislation by Congress.

You should have a privacy policy on site somewhere as a bit of CYA, though this blog post is a good start.

I also use Thunderbird to collect email responses and categorize by folder. Thunderbird puts all emails in a folder in one giant file. I scrape that file then and blacklist anyone who complains.

They're crazy to think you would ever something as shitty as spam them. I got that email and didn't think anything more of it than what it was, an invitation.

You're in the relationship building business and anyone who knows you, really knows you, should know you wouldn't do anything to jeopardize any relationship.

In the true blogger style you have explained yourself for those who need explaining to and I think it's pretty clear. Even if I felt the email was already.

Since when is sending email to a list of people that have said they want to stay in touch with you and what you do spam? That's ridiculous! I think people spend far too much time complaining than taking action. It clearly states that if you don't want to receive such emails, you can opt out. What does that take? Two clicks and less than a minute? Surely complaining about it and calling it spam not only takes more effort and time, but also just spews negativity into the world. Com'on people!

Thank you, Chris, for the email and the ability to stay connected and receive your newsletter.

Chris, I received the email you're referring to, thought it was very well written, with a clear message and an opt-out invite. I don't know how it could have been put in the spam category.

BTW, I'm looking forward to receiving the newsletter.

I agree with Derrick, above. I received your invitation for the email subscription, and appreciated it actually. I provided you with my information, follow you on Twitter and connected with you on my own accord. An invitation from you would not be considered Spam in my mind.

While you're not wrong, you're not necessarily right either, because each recipient has their own definitions of spam, unwanted email, inbox management, etc. Those definitions won't change no matter how right you are or how perfectly you behave.

Try to be OK with knowing some that people won't be OK. Find your own truth/comfort level in the balance between actively building up your newsletter subscriptions vs. pushback from some of your contacts. Remember that you know your intentions and offerings better than they ever could, so you really have to stick to what your goals are (since plainly, one of your goals is not to alienate contacts) when deciding this stuff.

I've had that issue before when trying to recruit through LinkedIn by emailing my contacts. I generally hand-select those folks who are most likely to know the right candidate, and have received "Please don't use LinkedIn to spam" in response at times.

Honestly, I think it comes down to 1) a lack of understanding of what spam really is and 2) A lack of education on how to best used LinkedIn. Perhaps they need to read Jason Alba's book. :)

Exactly...too many people are involved in social media and then don't have any idea what they are doing in this environment. Especially those on AOL!

I don't see the problem. I signed up for your newsletter, I got an email about it. /shrug.

This is interesting.

1) You are accessible. Most folks are hesitant to reply to spam for fear of confirming themselves on a spam list. [there is a live person who responds to spam sent to that address.]

2) Some may wonder how they granted you permission to contact them. LinkIn certainly implies a reasonable expectation of future contact, in or out of the LinkedIn platform.

3) Some may want to do what you are doing and seek clarification.

4) You did not sign me up for your newsletter automatically, you simply invited me. There is no implication that I will continue to receive emails from you if I don't sign up for the newsletter.

I can see why inquiries were registered since a lot of peole follow you. If your email explained that, "as a commenter on my blog, or as we are LinkedIn, or whatever, that might have reduced the the inquiries.

I think you are safe, especially using a great service like BlueSky or similar.

You completely got this backwards! The handshake should be opt in to spam not opt out.

People give out business cards, connect on LinkedIn for a variety of reasons. Rarely is this reason to be pulled in to an opt out e-mail push. That is completely backwards and not really grasping social interaction. It is old school marketing at its worst.

Taking the opposite approach, which most old school marketers learned in the past few years, is to say, "Hey, we have something that may be of interest to you. If you like it subscribe in a method of delivery that makes sense to you."

The e-mail address you have is one I protect and give out to people I trust and know will not abuse it. You have broken that trust. All of the things you say you ascribe to this goes against nearly all of that.

I got a copy of your invite this morning (and the correction) despite being already subscribed. I assumed it had been a generated list - nice to know where it came from.

And though it was a useful email, and would have been moreso had I not already been subscribed - it was still unsolicited. Merriam-Webster defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses"... Which I think it falls in.

Don't get me wrong - I thought it was a great idea and see nothing wrong with it... To me, it wasn't spam - but it wasn't bacn, really, either... Maybe we need a new term?

Not spam. I had previously requested subscription, so I got the comfirmation email, which was quite personable and amusing. Nicely done, looking forward to more.

I consider spamming to be purely self serving (as opposed to a healthy contribution of useful info) Advertising the availablity of a service such as your newsletter is more of a query directed at those with like interests.

I am very sensitive to spam, having been through onough of it in the last 12 years, and your offerings are far from it.

Cheers!

I appreciated your invitation. I haven't decided whether to subscribe yet; you haven't quite convinced me of the value, over and above subscribing to your RSS. Then there's the issue of what if I unsubscribe from it and you notice... I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings! ;)

You did it right, you had a clear method to have their address removed from future mailings. People just need to get the knots out of their knickers. It's not hard to delete an email.

Here's the tricky part, and it was mentioned by a few people: perception of opt-out versus opt-in. My email was asking you to opt into receiving my newsletter.

The email METHOD itself carried an opt-out, so that you could choose not to receive anything like that from my email.

@vanderwal - I hear you and feel sorry for your frustration. I wish you the best with your efforts.

Everyone else, thanks for your thoughts. It's important for me.

I am looking forward to getting the newsletter. Not spam, IMHO.

Hmmm... let me see. Complain about alleged spam from someone you have actually had some sort of business relationship with = 15 minutes of wasted time for you, and much more for the person on the other end.

Delete key = .1 seconds

I get email I'm not overly interested in from people I know all the time. If they do it once, I don't sweat it. If they do it 3 times, I deal with it.

Oh, this didn't fit that annoyance definition, anyway.

Chris, most e-mails I get along these lines in the past year start with a short explanation, and the opt out.

Your news letter is opt in, which is good. The blast message is not. It is a tough line and many services cross it. I have found very few services that get this right, but the role you have put yourself in should have a much better grasp of this.

FWIW, I also have a disclosure in my LinkedIn profile as well - if you request to be my friend/connection/whatever, you WILL get email from me.

I would never call such an email spam. And I agree people got into the habit of yelling spam much too often. Once you connect with a person, you are expected to keep in touch with them and share their interests. Them offering to share information should be regarded as a nice thing to do, not spam!

I love this conversation, as spam certainly is in the eye of the beholder, and my adventures in marketing and PR have caused me to think about this issue constantly.

Sales/marketing/PR lives on making outbound calls (phone, email, in-person visits), the first of which is generally unsolicited. If you target well, and offer something of value, you will get few complaints. some people will complain no matter what you do.

As for Tommy Vallier's call for a name for Brogan;s email, I vote for Haggis (or "Haggs?"). Might seem suspicious, but is actually delicious.

Interesting question and more subtle than it first seems. I agree with Vanderwal about opt-in / opt-out: in this case perhaps opt-in as the default might have been better.

As far as spam perceptions go, I think there is a middle category:

1 - Definitely Not Spam = consent + personal message + interest
2 - Maybe Spam = consent + generic message + maybe no interest
3 - Definitely Spam = no consent + random, generic message + no interest

To add a relevant personal example: a good friend of mine really likes conservative (republican) politics and often writes letters to newspapers. Every time one is published, he sends all of us an email with a link to the online version. Most of us enjoy them because he's our friend and writes very well. Other friends however - normally the socialist girls - get really angry with him about his 'spam'.

There is a big difference between, "I don't want this" and SPAM, IMHO. "I don't want this" comes to me about 20 times a day. These are legitimate providers of services... I don't know, Toyota, or WHYY, or even my credit card company. I opted-in to their email distribution list. I may only read an email in this group 1 out of 100 times. To me, it's the junk mail I don't automatically shred, because it's from a legitimate vendor.

SPAM... well, I thought we had all agreed that SPAM was everything from erectile dysfunction cures that lead you to a bogus website, to Nigerian phishing schemes, to pr0n mailings. These emails are either filtered right into my online spam-box, or I judge by the email address and the title that they're SPAM, and I click on the little SPAM button. For giggles, I'll read 1 in 10,000 SPAM I get. I have a Yahoo email address, and the SPAM box hovers around 3000. That puppy get's cleared out on a weekly rotation... so, one in 10,000 is about 1 every 3 to 4 weeks.

I've opted-in to Chris Brogan because I want to know what's going on. I've not tried to remove myself from the list, so I can't speak to how that works.

So, I think I'm at least in the group that senses a difference between "I don't want this" and SPAM.

SPAM = I don't want
BACN = I sorta want and will look at later
EMAIL = I kinda-sorta need to read it now-ish

A mass-message from someone in my network or circle of friends is probably BACN which means I asked for updates from this person. I expect communications from the chosen people in my network. Nobody should complain if they "befriend" and get EMAIL or BACN.

Its pretty simple in my book. Stay the course Chris and keep up the good work. Thanks.

I keep thinking back to Mr. Godin's comment on the best pitch post here a couple days back. He said that something that is not asked for is spam.

I never asked for immunization shots. I never asked for coupons in my Sunday paper. I never asked for the L.L. Bean catalog in my mailbox. I never asked for Chris Brogan to tell me about his friends at Gimp.TV that might benefit a client. I never asked for anyone several years ago to explain to me what a Purple Cow was.

But I benefited from them all.

I agree with Mr. Brogan. Just because you didn't ask for it doesn't make it spam. If you believe so, here's to your rubella outbreak.

@Jason Falls - that's the funniest damn thing I've read all day.

A round of rubella on Mr. Falls' tab!

Spam is a real problem, no doubt, but c'mon - whatta bunch of whiners. Lighten up.

Chris, maybe the right question to ask folks would be "Why are you connecting with me on LinkedIn?" That social network, in particular, implies the desire to connect with people on a professional/business level. Does this mean it's o.k. to contact each other only within the confines of LinkedIn and no other way? Does that apply across all the social networks that we connect to people on? Honestly, why bother even giving an email address if you don't want people to contact you using it?

It's simple. If you have an email address that you don't want people to contact you through, don't put it on a social network. It's that same lack of personal responsibility that allows people to spill hot coffee on themselves and sue the establishment that they drove into to get it from.

I relate a Dan Kennedy story to you. Once upon a time, a man persistently knocked at Kennedy's door repeatedly, ringing the doorbell and making a pest of himself. It was a contest of wills and Kennedy finally relented.

In just 5 seconds, the pest became the most welcome guest at the Kennedy household ever.

What made the drastic change? The guest had this to say: "YOUR BACKYARD IS ON FIRE AND YOUR HOUSE IS ABOUT TO BE! CALL 911!"

Was the guest the equivalent of a spammer? A matter of perspective, I suppose, but his message was certainly unsolicited and uninvited. His message received no prior permission, didn't obey any do-not-contact lists, and in fact was a nuisance.

Spam is more than "I do not want". It is "I do not want, and the message is of no value, sent indiscriminately, with no recourse for preventing future messages" to me.

As for Kennedy's visitor - if anyone here is by my house or office, and it's on fire, you have my explicit permission to interrupt me as loudly as possible.

I perceived it as spammy because I already subscribe to your newsletter--at the same email address. So instead of communicating with me as a friend and subscriber, you hit me with a canned pitch that implies you can't be bothered to know who your readers are. Not exactly spam, but not presenting you in the best light either. Best practices: match your new mailing list against current one and eliminate the dupes.

Chris, because I follow your updates, and you're very transparent about what you do, I wasn't surprised when I got the invitation to get your newsletter, or the corrected email afterward.

You have built your reputation as a connector and communicator. At the end of every one of your blog posts, there's an invitation to subscribe to your RSS feed.

I personally am glad you've decided to stay in touch because I value you in my professional network.

How often I choose to receive communication from you is up to me, and I accept that, as part of our relationship, I'll get email from you.

Thanks for keeping in touch.

Make it a great day!

Wow, this thread hit silly fast.

Chris has many channels of communicating info, this is not emergency information. Much of this is old information that has been around the block many times. Chris is a great messenger for this information for many who are new to this.

Chris has an e-mail address I give to people I trust and respect the use of it. That address was used to connect on LinkedIn, not by my initiation. When I know there is going to be pushed e-mail, not personal communication ("I have a project you may be interested in", "I would like to invite you to present at a conference/workshop", or meeting for coffee or meal) I give other e-mail addresses that I ignore. It is a common social interaction these days for managing the types of messages, information streams, and flows.

Most people and organizations will state upfront what they are going to do with an e-mail and allow the individual the option (if they want that type of interaction) which channel/mode of interaction they would like (e-mail address, RSS, listserve, etc). It is building respect and trust with the people you want to engage. This is normally lesson number one with social media, respect for attention and flows and allow those we are connecting with to state their wishes.

The same e-mail to one of my other e-mail addresses would be fine. To the one that was used was not something I would have asked and would have offered another option. This is something of basics these days.

Chris, I am not in your linked in list as I don't use Linked in at all... so you sent me your newsletters pitch because I somehow was in your contact address book (from the Pulver conferences).

So you spammed me. Admit it and don't try and bs your way around it.

While I certainly didn't see the email as spam, it read a bit odd to me...

1. I've already received several newsletters. It seemed a little late to be confirming my subscription.

2. If you switched the line about the reason for the email with the punchy bit about the name I would have quickly realized what the email was about. In fact, after I closed the email, I was still wondering when that next newsletter was coming. I totally missed the message. (which could just be another confirmation that I'm an idiot)

3. The postscript for Blue Sky was a bit redundant since there is a banner at the bottom of the email.

Anyway, I'm just glad to know that another newsletter is on the way. I wonder if this reminder will boost your open rate. :)

I got the email and thought it was well written, polite, reasonable, and compliant ... and yet I confess that ordinarily I am one of those ultra-critical types who can be quick to cry 'spam'.

How people can criticise Chris for this is beyond me. I can only guess there are people who resent others being in the public eye and being considered experts at what they do, so they take delight in finding fault.

You can never please everyone, that's for sure!

Hello Chris,

Seth Godin says if a message isn't anticipated, personalized and relevant, it's SPAM.

Anticipated: NO
Personalized: YES
Relevant: YES

But it's not that easy.

I ACCEPT messages from my social network, and I admit, if some folks sent me an unsolicited message, it might be the straw that broke the camel's back, and I might unfriend them. Too much signal-to-noise, not enough value.

But I read your blog and follow your tweets with great interest. You bring value and you've built trust with your social network -- that's the cornerstone of your success. If you disappeared off the radar screen, it might take a day or two, but I'd notice and I wouldn't be alone. Though I wasn't specifically anticipating your email, I do ANTICIPATE valuable conversations with you, regardless of the way you send them.

There's a huge difference between the two options, but the difference is in the value of the PERMISSION ASSET. You've built a lot of trust over the years and this asset is quite valuable to you (and something you don't ever want to lose).

Some don't treat this asset the same way. They might have a ton of connections, but they aren't nearly as meaningful. They are using their network instead of building a relationship. For example, I've noticed on twitter, someone I follow is starting to occasionally imbed sponsored messages. What?

I would suggest that if someone called you a spammer, you have a low-trust relationship with them.

And if that's the case, they clearly haven't been paying attention to what you've been saying and just don't know you very well.

Keep on keepin' on!

Patrick Byers
The Responsible Marketing Blog
http://responsiblemarketing.com

I first felt disappointment and sadness, it was not an invitation to drink alcohol slushies in a mall in Vegas until 5 in the morning. Then I felt great joy to know a newslettter would be coming from Chris on a regular basis. Now I am just spent from commenting here and I must go lay down.

Thank you for including me.

Mike
www.meetingspodcast.com
www.GrassShackRoad.com

Robin Houghton, I found the source of Chris' e-mail ironic. Many mainstream media and marketing firms have gone to extensive efforts to get this social script for e-mail interaction right (it is one that is really tough). I am NOT saying all of them do this well.

The irony is people leading social media charge often (NOT saying Chris does this) blast mainstream marketing for similar things. Chris Heuer long ago paid very careful attention to just this matter in his e-mails, as have many others.

All of this is far from the e-mail interaction and stating how an address will be used for communicating and allowing for changes to the address to best fit those we communicate with. The tools for this are often poor and take a lot of digging and research to find tools and services that do this well.

I am glad Chris has opened this up for comments. There is a much better way. Others have embraced it and made it part of their regular way of interacting.

Hi Chris

Here I am just feeling gutted I didn't get an e-mail from you!

Thanks for opening this up to comments here. A lot to learn from the different inputs.

I hate using e-mail lists for fear of bugging someone or breaching the line. It inhibits me totally. It's why I prefer to put out material via the blog (+ other means). It's totally permission based.

I wondered here the other day what the benefits were of newsletters by e-mail vs blog. I think this conversation has answered the question for me!

Joanna

Thanks Chris, I, for one, was happy to get the invite, and look forward to the newsletter. People get awfully bent out of shape sometimes!

Hi Chris:

I had no problem with your message at all. Due to your generous contributions on your blog and Twitter, I already know you, like you and trust you.

My only pet peeve with new email lists is when it is the "opt out" version that some described above, where people say "If you want to be removed from this list, click here." I like your approach which was to ask if I wanted to join.

Some people are never happy and call any interruption spam. I would get riled when people who joined my newsletter list (where they have to double-opt in to join, just to be sure) say things like "I have no idea how I got on this list" and report it as spam. Amnesia or hallucinogenic mailing list subscription behavior is all I can think of. Either that, or an ex was trying to get back at them by subscribing them unwittingly to a life coach's newsletter.

Keep up the good work, and truly don't worry about pleasing everyone. If you operate with a good spirit, which you do, everything sorts out in the end.

All the best,

-Pam

Some really great comments. I had to be away from my desk for about 3 hours, so I apologize for not staying right on top of the commenting. Here are some thoughts.

RH - I used LinkedIn. I have six RH's. If you're from Toronto, I'm connected to you. If you're one of the other five, feel free to drop me a line, and I'll prove our connection. I did most certainly invite people I met while working with Jeff Pulver to join my LinkedIn. That's likely. But I hold no databases.

Another friend mentioned that I should have disclosed early in the message WHERE I was reaching out from, so that you'd know it was LinkedIn.

Jason Falls did a great job of saying it with humor, but he's not wrong in some regards. I was thinking something similar. If I invite you to a Birthday party (which is totally different context, I admit), you didn't ask for that invite, and yet, you might want it.

Mind you, I'm hoping my newsletter elicits neither thoughts of rubella or birthdays.

@vanderwal - and thanks for keeping up the conversation, you said something I found interesting. You mentioned email and emergency. To me, that line is phone. I get anxious if someone offers me things via phone. I figure email's sufficient. So maybe your line is even further down the stream.

As for mainstream versus not, I have a thought on this: newsletters have recently proven interesting to me. Why? Because it's another way to deliver information. My #1 goal? Provide information that you might find useful. This is another way to do that.

Why do newsletters in a world of blogs? Because if you opt into it, I can send you information that's useful and hopefully timely. I've designed the blog experience to be different than the newsletter experience.

And I'm a fan of permission marketing. I sent an email asking your permission, where YOU choose the next step. Delete my introduction. Opt out of future emails. Or say yes.

I've yet to figure out a way to offer something without getting your attention, but maybe we should talk about that, too.

Weird side effect: I've had 19 new LinkedIn friendship requests. Odd that, eh?

My email box was filled with over 300 spam emails over the holiday weekend. Have no idea how my addy got passed around like that, but fortunately not one of them was from you! :)

HomeSpun Granny

According to my friend, Jim, what I sent was spam: http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html . So, is that really it?

What's your take?

I also perceived it as spammy but I liked that you are aggressive about growing your business. Email seems quite Web 1.0, and I've already subscribed to your great thinking via RSS. And I was never asked to opt in for email, so perhaps there is another step here to avoid hitting up people who already subscribe.

Second, the error in the first email. Obviously, that's a major nono for anyone who represents clients, let alone one's own brand. It's something that PR guys like me cannot allow to happen on our clients' behalf, so I would imagine you thought long and hard about sending a second email simply to make a correction.

If you were a major brand shooting out an email to an audience that did not originally opt in for it, how would you react?

I read the e-mail, had the chance to clearly opt out, chose not to ... what's the dilemma?

The problem is that in this socially-connected world, people sign up for such a plethora of connections -- like LinkedIn -- that they actually forget, or do not read, the conditions of what they're signing up for, then are surprised when a polite, e-mail arrives reminding them of that fact.

That's not spam. It's a good, aggressive marketing process.

By the Spamhaus definition, how do you differentiate between the spamminess of an unsolicited single first contact enquiry and an unsolicited group first contact enquiry? Proper use of software makes the two indistinguishable, unless you make a boneheaded mistake like I do and forget that your field names are [fname] and not [FirstName]?

At what point does group become bulk? 2? 5? 10? 10,000?

What a bunch of BS!!!!!!! What amazes me is that I got the email, I had already subscribed to the blog via google reader, and I did it because I am interested in what Chris has to say about social networking because I am new to it and have recently started a blog of my own in reference to my industry. Thanks for the email Chris, and I guess with a following as large as yours this would need to be clarified because someone ALWAYS has to complain. I feel like it was not spam. It is simple, you got my email because we are connected in some fashion through LinkedIn ( I don't think so yet, but I will look you up) or because I subscribed to something or twitter or whatever, this is social networking, isn't it? Or are some of us just trying to gain numbers of followers or friends on our networks?

Keep up the good work Chris,
Keith Bloemendaal
Sales Manager
Carolina Custom Fences, LLC

It poses a question, though. When your community grows beyond the direct personal touch (remember, I'm not a company in this regard. This is just my own personal "me" project), how do you expand in ways that make sense?

In a way, this is what hits PR people, too. Have I run into that? Not sure.

Tricky stuff.

Part of the problem is that there is not one definition of spam, there are a multitude of definitions. There is the Spamhaus definition (unsolicited bulk email), there are ISP definitions (usually "mail our users don't want). There are sender definitions (spam is what someone else sends, my mail is not spam). There is the legal definition (defined by CAN SPAM).

Generally, if a recipient says a mail is spam, then it is spam to them under their definition of spam. If the sender and recipient get into a discussion it usually devolves to rule lawyering where the sender tries to convince the recipient that the mail wasn't spam because it didn't fall into one of the definitions of spam. The problem is that the recipient feels like he was spammed and is unlikely to agree that the mail isn't spam.

It sounds like some of your recipients felt you spammed and some were happy to get the email. This is pretty typical, and it just means that personal perceptions are different. As a delivery consultant I teach my clients to be conservative in what they send and err on the side of not sending email that the recipient does not expect, to avoid any delivery problems due to spam complaints.

Generally, the large ISPs and many of the commercial spam filtering companies rely on end user complaints to make blocking decisions. A single email that pushes the limits of recipient expectation and relevancy is probably not going to destroy your reputation and cause you delivery problems at ISPs. Repeatedly pushing that line may eventually cause you delivery problems.

This seems to be another case of those of us inside the bubble taking ourselves way too seriously. It's like the inside baseball talk of a bunch of Bill James acolytes debating the nuance of statistical prediction in our favorite pastime.

Unsolicited email should not automatically be labeled spam, no matter how many people may have received it. If I see a sincere email from someone to me -- even if I don't know them and they sent it to 5000 other people -- that's fine by me.

The spam we should all be concerned about is that which comes from hijacked computers, overseas email mills, con artists, and other lowlife operations. Unsolicited email from colleagues, acquaintances, legitimate marketers, and others shouldn't be something to fret about.

Imagine how boring your life would be if you only heard from people you specifically requested to talk to you. Look back at your past and try to figure out who you would not have a relationship with today if you had to ignore anyone with whom you did not initiate the original contact.

Serendipity matters. Marketing matters. If you don't want unsolicited email of any kind at any time, don't use email at all.

I was just in my spam folder for my gmail account. 2400 unread. Here's one:

Bacheelor, MasteerMBA, and Doctoraate diplomas available in the field of your choice that's right, you can even become a Doctor and receive all the benefits that comes with it!

Our Diplomas/Certificates are recognised in most countries

No required examination, tests, classes, books, or interviews.

** No one is turned down
** Confidentiality assured

CALL US 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK

For US: 1-801-504-2132
Outside US: +1-801-504-2132

"Just leave your NAME & PHONE NO. (with CountryCode)" in the voicemail

our staff will get back to you in next few days

--

I wonder if it's a real offer. I wonder if this person is just someone marketing a newsletter. Are there comparisons?

I don't think so.

I do agree that people have become hyper-sensitive about spam. I believe the key is relevancy. if I were to receive an unsolicited email for a surfing weather (I live in Dallas), I'd consider it spam because it's not relevant to me or anything I've expressed interest in previously. However, if I were to receive an email newsletter about Dallas area golf courses based upon my expressed interest at a particular club, I wouldn't consider that spam.

Jay

Chris - with all due respect, spam is in the eye of the beholder, not the sender. If a percentage of the people you mailed are saying "this is spam" then to them, it is. Arguing with them is not going to change their perception of being spammed, it's just going to piss them off.

That doesn't mean you're right down there with the scum of the earth spammers who clog our inboxes trying to push pills, p0rn, and other crap. It just means you should think things through a little better next time you want to send out bulk email to people that you don't know very well.

Chris, the people who found your invitation to be spam are not your kind of people. This is a positive thinning process. Don't regret it, but rather realize that your community is in better shape than it was yesterday.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the email invite to the newsletter, I haven't signed up because I follow your blog RSS, twitter, etc; which brings me to my point.

I'm sure there are lots of people that don't drink from the web2.0 kool-aid that might be interested in and informed by your insights. Well done for reaching out to them.

If you'd bought an email list and sent out newsletter emails, that would (in my book) count as spam.

If you'd randomly emailed alphanumeric-combination@gmail/hotmail/yahoo that would definitely be spam.

Coming from someone that speaks intelligently about social media, participates in numerous media forms, and is someone I've knowingly connected to in a business perspective: not spam.

Keep up the good work.

Chris,

I could never see you as a spammer when you're reaching out with the best interests in heart. Sadly those best interests don't come out to everyone in the email. :/

I didn't feel spammed, but a bit confused why I was getting the email when I've already subscribed. That, as several have pointed out, is a different matter than spam. It's more about list maintenance.

One of the best things about you is your willingness to really think about these things rather than dismissing them as noise. Just another reason we know you're about community.

So let me get this straight...people are giving you their email address, and then they are COMPLAINING about you sending them email? Seems kinda backwards to me.

Perhaps it comes down to the non-personal nature of mass emails (Although it was nifty that the email greeting had MY name on it). People feel that if you send out a broadcast email that they are just part of the masses and feel that they are just another on your growing list of people being marketed to. In some cases, with other bloggers/communicators/marketers, that is possibly true. From what I know of you, Chris, that's not likely your motivation.

I've got news for the nay-sayers..if you don't want anyone to send you email, don't give out your email address. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, Chris, you can't please all the people all the time - but that's kind of what makes it fun, eh? :-)

its the eye of the beholder. to most, its fine. to some its not. so they can opt-out.

i use Constant Contact (constantcontact.com) to send emails to people on the Green House ( www.green-house.tv ) list, and via my weekly update from Constant Contact, i see one or two people opt out, but i see 15 or 20 people subscribe.

this means that the email i send out each week is being forwarded to new people i would never been able to reach otherwise, so i'll take some flack from those that see it as spam.

you can't make everyone happy.

Am I totally off base here by saying that when I added you as a contact on Linkedin, and freely gave my email address, didn't I give you permission to send email to me? I trusted you to not sell my address or forward it, but I knowingly gave it with the expectation that I might receive email from you.

Thus, the term "unsolicited," meaning not looked for, or unsought, wouldn't apply. Oh, I might not have been expecting this particular email, but at some point in time, I would have expected something.

Lisa
http://www.iowaavenue.com

Unfortunately, it is near impossible to land on everyone's good side all the time. Recently, in an effort to soften an email offer (an offer that 70+% of the recipients jumped on), I had someone make introductory calls to introduce that I would send an email with the offer details if they were interested. Of the 32 people who said 'yes, please send' over the phone, two sent me a 'don't spam me' reply to my email. Lesson learned for me? Some people react too quickly to emails (and even phone calls) and may not take the time to connect the dots. And I am not going to take it personally.

My intro call to them ended with a 'sorry you thought I spammed you call' to try to unruffle their feathers...a total of 3 touches for something they wanted. And an asterisk near their names in my database, indicating 'tread lightly'.

I use the permission marketing approach that seth godin teaches, in 2002 I wanted to begin electronicly communicating with my clients. I called my clients and asked if I could add them to this mailing list. Some said no and I thanked them, they then asked if I would call them instead - they get a monthly courtesy call instead. I would have never known that about them. I had several hundred clients then so it was a large project yet. It was 100% insightful. Very few said no to communicating they just asked for a different method. Each new person I now add to my client list gets asked first if I can add them to my mailing list. I say - it's really important to me to keep in touch with you, may I add you to my mailing list? Here is an example of my communication from Monday and I send them a link

If I had to start that project now I couldn't do it as my mailing list is way too large. I am glad I developed a good strategy when my business was young

I personally feel way too many people don't bother to ask and when I get blasted I will usually say something.

Chris - the reason I connected with you on LinkedIn was because I am interested in what you are doing and what you have to say professionally . I thought your email was polite and to the point and would hve been hard to take offence to.

CL

There is an important distinction in UBE, which is not a value judgment but by definition, mail I never asked for. What is the context in which you are connected, or "friended", and the what is exact object of the email.

I had no problem with your offer, but I have received recent promo for various conferences from people who just put every connection they have on one big mailing list. The trouble is, it comes off as negative to me because they have no idea who I am or whether I care. Is anyine thinking that we care abut every domain of activity every contact is into? SHould I email every one on my friends lists to tell them to come to Berlin for presentations about the future of the SIP protocol? I think not :)

This has resulted in my becoming a lot more wary about friend requests on say, Ning networks. I have been spammed several times based on those. I'd be careful about using the exact term "opt out" as it has a negative feeling about it, but that's totally subjective.

The worst example to date on Ning was an invitation to a site that only allows females. This woman took her entire "friends" list, sent the invites out, and however many males were on that "friend" list, I'm sure they all felt the same way I did: "Spam!" Although 'randulo' isn't a gender-specific name, the pseudo in use on that particular network was "Mr xxxxx" which is completely unambiguous. When politely confronted with this, she denied it. Months later, the same person re-spammed me with more promo for the same women's merchant site. The sensitivity to this kind of "contact abuse", and what she did is abusive (or cluless if you prefer), has created the animosity towards UBE in general and is the root cause of what some of you consider over-sensitivity.

When I give people my e-mail address I think it's pretty clear that I've "opted-in" to receive e-mail from them. Maybe it's nicer to receive just-for-me-'cause-I'm-special e-mails than the I'm-too-busy-to-write-JUST-you, and perhaps the here's-a-stupid-joke-I-will-send-to-every-poor-soul-in-my-address-book is downright annoying and definitely unwanted.... but it ain't spam.

Oddly enough none of the people to whom I provide my e-mail address include an "opt-out" OR "opt-in" clause. I'm actually expected to write an e-mail politely asking them to remove me from their f*@!ing dumbass joke list. No lie.

Spam is e-mail from complete strangers offering to turn your dwarf into a giant..... especially when you've never, EVER had a dwarf.... or even know where to get one.

Thanks for the e-mail Chris. And very thoughtful of you to provide an opt-out clause as you are unable to read my mind. Really, REALLY thoughtful.

Question: is giving your business card to someone considered giving them our email to put on a mailing list?

If the answer to the above question is "yes, giving your card to someone is asking to be put on their impersonal periodic mailing list", then we need business cards with no email for certain people we meet casually. It's fairly common for people to ask you for your card, even though there's no likely synergy between you. That's fine as long as they don't then send me the hair transplant mailings.

I totally agree that linking up with Chris or someone else is not like just giving them a business card, it is giving them your email and saying "feel free to get in touch". Maybe there's a nuance here: who initiates the contact?

That begs the question do people whom you know you never want to see or hear from again ask you for your card? Do you give it?

à suivre...

Wow Chris, lots of great comments! You certainly sparked a debate around permission marketing and thoughts on mass email marketing!

Its a tricky subject no matter which way you look at it, as "spam" is perceived differently from the eye of every recipient.

The point I would like to make is that one of the big trends in email marketing these days around whats perceived as "spam or junk mail" is around relevance. Irrelevance truly is the new spam. So to all of the people who were initially contacted by you, thats the decision that they need to make, is Chris Brogan's content relevant to me?

In my opinion, you went about this correctly. You gave the folks on your list an initial contact message, asked them if they want to hear from you via email, and gave them the clear option to act on that decision.

If you are not relevant in their world, hopefully they opted out, which we handle on the fly for you, and those people will never receive emails from you again.

You know we take permission marketing VERY SERIOUSLY, and would advise you if your mailings generated high complaint rates, etc and your did not. It merely sparked some good conversation around the idea of permission marketing.

Thanks again for using our service! We appreciate it and are happy to help whenever needed.

Best,

Greg Cangialosi
Blue Sky Factory, Inc

I am quite happy to receive marketing mail when I have opted in either knowingly or by virtue that I showed an interest in your site. You have acted correctly and have your CANSPAM notice. What's the big deal?
Much ado about Nothing

Commercial email is spam if there's no existing business relationship between the two parties. As you said, you emailed people who were in your LinkedIn circle and provided an opt-out, so... it's not spam. If it were, I wouldn't have subscribed, but I did. :)

i lovet his so much!

What a great discussion on the subject of permission marketing. I realize my comment is a bit out of date given that most of this discussion took place 10 months ago. Reading how sensitive the subject it is for many, I am certainly not encouraged to contact my few thousand clients now in order to ask them to opt in, something I thought about recently to do, especially if all of them had either first contacted me themselves, attended my seminars and lectures, or did consulting with me though in neither situation at the time I asked them to opt it to my list. From the comments above it seems clear that while many could handle this sudden email inquiry on my part as they and I obviously had a prior business contact, many other, however, can go off deep end. In short, I truly have to ask myself if I really want to maintain a mailing list in the first place.