Targeted opt-out email: busting some myths

The blogtwitsphere is all-a-flutter of late with the implication that financial pressures are driving more marketers to send bulk email to those who didn't agree to get them.

We're not talking classic random spam here.

We're talking "targeted" opt-out email, where the sender has data on the email address that suggests the email might have relevance to the recipient.

So is this a legitimate tactic? After all, every email marketing book out there stresses the importance of permission as the foundation of good email marketing.

Ask those who sell business contact data, and they'll say of course it's legitimate. And they wheel out three convincing arguments to counter the objections of permission advocates...

Argument #1 As long as my emails are valuable and relevant, it's fine

You read a lot about relevancy and value in email marketing. The implication is that a "good" marketing email is one that is relevant and offers value to the recipient.

Which leads opt-out enthusiasts to say "hey, opt-out is fine as long as my emails to those folk are relevant and valuable."

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

The problem is that targeted opt-out emails are invariably not targeted at all. Not relevant. Not valuable. Here's why...

Misplaced self-estimation

Every proponent of opt-out I've ever talked to overestimates the value and relevancy of their email. Every single one was convinced that their product or service was so good that people would be grateful to hear about it. Here's the reality:



False assumptions

However much data you may have, you cannot know enough to accurately guess what I'm interested in. Which is why opt-in works better because I self-identify my interests by signing up for that email.

Opt-out email invariably uses cues and clues that are entirely speculative in nature...

• He has a business, he must want accounting services.
• He has a website about email marketing, he must want to rent email lists.
• He is male, he must want a bigger...

The answer is no, no I don't actually.

Bad data

Unless your information comes from the email's owner, errors inevitably creep into your data. Examples:

1. Stefan Pollard writes on collecting email addresses through email appends:

"...you can end up with addresses that actually belong to other people, not your customers."

2. One well-known supplier of business contacts has me listed as working for Return Path. I've never even met a Return Path employee, let alone been one.

(And my website is apparently based in New Jersey, which is only out by about 4,300 miles.)

Still think opt-out is targeted?

Here's the crux...

Most opt-in email isn't terribly relevant or valuable (check average clickthrough rates for proof). And these are sent to people who self-selected themselves as interested and made the effort to sign-up.

How can you imagine that bulk opt-out email would do a better job?

Opt-in is holding up broccoli in a room of kids and asking who wants some. Those who put their hand up get it, like it and want more.

Opt-out is picking out kids on the basis that they "eat food" and then forcing them to eat broccoli.

Who's going to be more popular?

Argument #2 It's not spamming because it's legal

There is nothing in the US Can-Spam legislation that says commercial email has to be opt-in. (This comes as a surprise to many people, but it's true.)

So what?

First, note that most anti-spam legislation elsewhere in the world does require an opt-in for commercial email, except in particular circumstances.

Second, both recipients and those who manage incoming email (ISPs, webmail services, corporate IT departments) are more interested in the migration patterns of the black-tailed Godwit than the legal definition of spam.

Spam is whatever they define it as and Can-spam compliance is no defence against spam complaints or blacklisting.

Opt-out practices usually exclude you from any deliverability help through whitelists, certification, feedback loops etc.

And most email marketing service providers (ESPs) won't let you use their systems to send bulk opt-out email.

For more on this, see "Legal compliance is for lawyers not marketers."

Argument #3 I've done it and it works: nobody ever complains

Still, the opt-out folk remain defiant. "You're wrong" they say "...because I've been doing opt-out for years and nobody's ever complained."

I won't lie to you. People send out opt-out email campaigns and get some positive responses. The problem is that the problems caused by the opt-out approach aren't immediate or obvious.

But they are very real.

People may not always complain to the sender, but they'll complain to their ISP or their colleagues. Or their social network.

I've covered this in the recent post "What's the worst that can happen." While you might be out celebrating a new sale, your brand and future deliverability is potentially disappearing down a large black hole.

Summary

The arguments about opt-out or opt-in all boil down to one of the commonest questions I get asked: "If I send this, will people think I'm spamming?"

(If you have to ask, the likely answer is yes.)

Whatever protagonists on both side of the debate may claim, there is no simple answer.

Whatever email you send and whoever you send it to, you will always get a spectrum of responses. Some will welcome your email and respond positively. Some will call you a spammer. And most will fall somewhere in between.

The further you get from the permission ideal, the more responses will fall in the "you're a spammer" end of the spectrum, with all the horrors that brings. And opt-out is a long way from the permission ideal. It's your choice, but choose wisely.

Further reading: Marketing email or spam?

Tags: email, email marketing