Turkey And Ham, Why Does UBE Continue To Be A Problem? Options

[John_Glube]

Let me put forward a position. At the same time, I am interested to hear the views of others.

Unsolicited bulk email (UBE) is not socially taboo within the online marketing community. How can I say this when so much has been written about the costs associated with spam and what UBE is doing to destroy email as the killer marketing application.

Simple. The American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, and the Direct Marketing Association (the three largest marketing trade associations in the US and by default the globe) continue to support the sending of unsolicited bulk commercial email.

What? Not true you say. Well read 9 Guidelines Guidelines That Establish Standards for Legitimate E-mail Marketing Practices published by the AAAA, ANA and DMA in October, 2003.

the-dma.org/cgi/disppressrelease?article=511

The objective being to "distinguish and eradicate 'spam' from the legitimate and growing E-Marketplace."

And how is 'spam' defined? Unsolicited bulk commercial email with false headers, deceptive subject lines and opt-out links which do not work.

What about harvesting of email addresses? That is ok as long as consumers are given "notice and choice," meaning giving consumers the option of opting out.

What is my question?

As long as the major American trade associations tell marketers it is ok to send unsolicited bulk commercial email with clean headers, good subject lines and opt-out links which work, (some calling this "good" spam), despite it being argued "bad" spam is the real harm, will not UBE continue to be a major problem for the online community?

I ask because many of the big service providers are saying in essence let's not fight the position of the AAAA, ANA and DMA.

Why do I say this? Market solutions presently being proposed by the big service providers, including sender authentication are focused on fighting "bad" spam.

See for example the recent policy document issued by the Anti Spam Technical Alliance, which includes AOL, British Telecom, Comcast, Earthlink, Microsoft and Yahoo! (docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/pdf/asta_soi.pdf - particularly pages 15 - 16.)

How come this approach? Statistics indicate "bad" spam presently represents the vast majority of UBE swirling around the Internet by volume.

The argument?

Bring the bad spam under control and this will deal with the present crisis.

And what about solicited commercial emailers?

Not a problem. Solicited commercial emailers will ultimately earn good reputations allowing for whitelisting of their domains.

But to facilitate this process, set up accreditation services allowing for solicited commercial emailers to get their messages through.

Some suggest the need for accreditation services will be limited to new entrants who want to quickly establish a good reputation, or to assist existing businesses deal with past problems.

Others are concerned accreditation services will become obligatory, irrespective of reputation.

(As an aside to prevent this, SiteSell for one is continuing with its "deliver my email campaign" even though apparently SiteSell's immediate problems with Brightmail and Microsoft have been resolved.)

One view.

This whole approach does not deal with the underlying problem.

It continues to allow marketers to believe it is okay to put their financial interest first. This despite it being patently obvious the sending of unsolicited bulk commercial email is a negative sum game. The costs of dealing with all UBE for the online community at large greatly outweighs any potential financial gain for individual marketers and the businesses they represent.

Therefore this approach is doomed to fail as it does impose the social stigma of being labeled a spammer on all marketers who send unsolicited bulk commercial email.

Another view.

Let's be pragmatic. "True all UBE is bad and the stance of the AAAA, ANA and DMA is appalling."

However, given their clout, let's co-opt them to bring "bad" spam which is the big problem right now under control.

Let's focus on the really bad actors who spew out the bulk of the spam.

(There is a presumption that roughly 90% of the world spam problem is the result of a limited number of actors. This view is expressed in the ROSKO list found at spamhaus.org. However, in testimony before the US Senate in May, the FTC said it could not verify the view that the vast bulk of the problem was due to the actions of a limited number of actors.)

Once this is done, we can then confront the social position espoused by the big trade associations. Besides, some suggest dealing with so called "good" spam is easy.

Thoughts, comments, views?

John Glube

This post has been edited by John_Glube: Jul 21 2004, 03:27 PM

[Jbrookins]

While I agree with what you say, I don't think the internet community really accepts the big 3 offline marketing agencies as anything nearing authority. (unless of course, it justifies what you want!)

That said, I'm not entirely in agreement that all "UBE" is bad, though I would say that it's a very dangerous thing to do.

What we have to determine is realistically, what type of direct marketing via email IS acceptable, and I mean this in not just the knee-jerk reaction most of us have that recieve these thousands of Spam emails a day, but in a manner that keeps things to a level that doesn't create inconvenience.

After all, follow up emails for previous customers and shopping cart recovery emails are quite effective if done properly. They're brief, don't create any real inconvenience to the recipient, but are, technically, unsolicited.

The real problem isn't EXACTLY UBE, it's the complete lack of enforcable standards to curb someone harvesting your email, being sneaky to get you to allow them to sell it, and then doing so with great fervor.

What we need is a realistic rulebook that says:
1> No, always re-checking the "yes it's ok to whore my email address out to everyone" box on error is not cool.
2> NO, YOU DON'T NEED TEN ****ING DAYS TO REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST
3> "our partners" means "once in a while and relevant", not "Hey, I want to recieve 150 emails a day concerning loans, surveys, debt reduction, space camp, and canine toenail care!"
4> If you're bad, you will be flayed, beaten, rolled in salt, and dragged through the streets by your naughty bits.

This post has been edited by Jbrookins: Jul 21 2004, 04:02 PM

[John_Glube]

While I agree with what you say, I don't think the internet community really accepts the big 3 offline marketing agencies as anything nearing authority. (unless of course, it justifies what you want!)

True. However the problem is not within the "internet community" which generally accepts that UBE is "bad," but rather with the legislators, regulatory agencies and "big" service providers who listen to the big "3" marketing trade associations.

What we have to determine is realistically, what type of direct marketing via email IS acceptable, and I mean this in not just the knee-jerk reaction most of us have that recieve these thousands of Spam emails a day, but in a manner that keeps things to a level that doesn't create inconvenience.

Let me suggest a standard which could work:

You can't send commercial email without 'affirmative' consent, except where:

(The definitions in the US Federal law can work although the FTC needs to issue some rules clarifying a couple of questions.)

* you have implied consent, being either a pre-existing business relationship with the recipient; or,

(To establish a pre-existing business relationship, there must have been a prior sale within the previous 18 months and at the time you collected the email address, the recipient must have the option of opting out from receiving direct marketing email.)

* the recipient has posted her email address on her web site.

(If she posts a disclaimer that says "no commercial email please, this will suffice to revoke the implied consent.)

* Commercial email does not include a transactional or relationship message.

* You are also prohibited from sending a commercial or transactional/relationship message using relays, spoofing, phishing, zombie computers or by any other means designed to prevent the recipient, internet access service or authorities from easily and quickly identifying the sender; without a working opt-out mechanism and without a valid mailing address.

* If you advertise knowingly in a prohibited message, or you knowingly supply support, products or services to someone who transmits prohibited messages you are liable.

(Knowingly to include actual and presumed knowledge, so the advertiser or supplier simply can't turn a blind eye. The advertiser or supplier must take reasonable precautions. Need to be careful not to make it too restrictive, but at the same time want to stop service providers from saying, we did not know, when the evidence was staring them in the face.)

* Since this is an economic crime, I am not sure throwing people in jail, except for the worst offences makes much sense.

Rather give the Courts upon application by the appropriate regulatory agencies wide powers to shut down a spamming operation upon reasonable proof and upon reasonable proof allow regulatory agencies to impose heavy fines, and follow up orders, with publicity, seems more appropriate.

As to the 10 day rule, this is in the US Federal law for a reason, due to the "apparent" suppression requirement for opt-out mailers.

(10 days may seem too long to most folks, but some "opt-out" firms have 20 or 30 lists, with millions of people on these lists. In these cases, 10 days may or may not be long enough.)

If you went from an opt-out to an opt-in regime, you no longer have any need for this requirement.

John

P.S. This model roughly reflects the Australian law, which has received good reviews, along with some of the better bits in the US Federal law. Please note the Australian law does not have a private right of action.

John Glube
Toronto, Canada