The EEC has an article today about a poorly done opt-in email that DJ Waldo received. How close is that to what you send?
0 Comments
Tag Archive for 'Confirmed (double) opt-in'
What’s an opt-in reconfirmation email? Also called, as fellow blogger Al
Iverson mentioned lately, a re-engagement email, or a permission pass email.
Al links to DJ Waldow’s write up on Shop.org’s recent re-engagement
strategy, and today I see that Janine Popick, CEO of VerticalResponse,
talking about Coach’s turn at culling their list through this process. What’s interesting here is that, according to Janine, Coach didn’t target this reconfirmation email only at recipients who never open or click. She says she does both, regularly, and received this email message anyway. Another friend of mine, who is also a Coach subscriber, reports to me that she receives regular emails from them (most recently as just about
ten days ago), but that she did not receive this reconfirmation email message.
Ken Magill (hereafter known as Mr. Stupid Poopypants) has a follow up article today on his article from last week about the Obama campaign’s mailing practices. While poking Dylan a bit, his message is that marketers really need to look harder at double opt-in.
All these things can and do go wrong with double opt-in, but the risks of not using it have simply become too great. For one thing, if a marketer gets blacklisted by, say, Spamhaus, and the mailer is not using double opt-in, the folks at Spamhaus will force the issue.
On the plus side, marketers using double opt-in don’t get blacklisted by Spamhaus because they never hit Spamhaus’s traps—fake e-mail addresses set up to catch spammers.
Also, fake signups are nothing to get worked up about. They are simply a fact of e-mail list building that the marketer must guard against or accept the inevitable consequences. It is solely up to mailers to keep their lists clean, and no one else.
Data verification is a necessary and critical bit of email marketing on today’s internet. For many marketers, the only solution may be to move to double opt-in.
Friday Al posted about data verification, building on discussions last week about Mr. Poopyhead’s article on open signup forms. He has a very insightful analogy, that I like and I am going to steal (emphasis from the original).
Running a web form, especially one that requires that an Internet user provide information before handing over something, whether it be a login to a website, a free download, or a subscription to a political newsletter, is a bit like putting a box in the middle of the sidewalk, somewhere up the block, and writing “Please put my free kitten here!” on the side of the box. You might end up with something in it, but it most certainly is not going to be that kitten you were hoping for. No matter how hard you wish, there is no agreement between you and the people who stumble across that form that they must behave, and must act a certain way. And, if you’re a savvy marketer, if you know how email works, you already know that certain people who stumble across your form are NOT going to behave. (Unless you’re just going to blindly assume that whatever you received must be a kitten, because that’s what the box is for. Duh!)
The solution is to make people give correct data before they get the prize, login, reward or free stuff. This can be accomplished by using confirmed opt-in. Al has concrete reasons why this is a win for marketers so go read his post.
Yesterday I blogged about eROIs contention that consumers should not be wasting the time of lead gen companies by filling in fake data. There were lots of good comments on the post, and I strongly encourage you to go read them if you are interested in different perspectives on the data issue.
One of the arguments I was making is that people are only going to give accurate information if they trust the website that is collecting information. I do, strongly, believe this. I also believe very strongly that websites collecting information need to do so defensively. It is the only way you can get good information.
This ties in with an earlier post about a website that collects email addresses from any visitor, then turns around and submits those addresses to webforms. Hundreds of mailing lists have already been corrupted by this group. They are a prime reason companies must design address collection process defensively. There are people who do bad things, who will take an opportunity to harass senders and recipients. This company is not the first, nor will they be the last to commit such abuses.
Taking a stand against abusive companies and people may be useful, but that will not stop the abuse. It is much easier to design process that limits the amount of abuse. For lead gen, in particular, confirmed opt-in is one way to limit the amount of bad data collected. As a side effect, it also results in less blocked mail, fewer complaints and better delivery.
A number of ESPs have been tracking problematic signups over the last few days. These signups appear to be coming from an abusive service called SpamZa.
SpamZa allows anyone to sign up any address on their website, or they did before they were unceremoniously shut down by their webhost earlier this week, and then submits that address to hundreds of opt-in lists. This is a website designed to harass innocent recipients using open mailing lists as the harassment vehicle.
Geektech tested the signup and received almost a hundred emails 10 minutes after signing up.
SpamZa was hosted on GoDaddy, but were shut down early this week. SpamZa appears to be looking for new webhosting, based on the information they have posted on their website.
What does this mean for senders?
It means that senders are at greater risk for bad signups than ever before. If you are targeted by SpamZa, you will have addresses on your list that do not want your mail. Some of those addresses could be turned into spam traps.
- Check your signups. If you see hundreds of signups coming from the same IP address over a very short period of time, treat them carefully. There are a number of things a sender can do to limit the impact on a list.
- Delete the addresses coming from a single IP
- Confirm the addresses coming from a single IP
- Implement confirmation. Start using closed loop opt-in (double opt-in) on new signups going forward. This will keep future incarnations of SpamZa from corrupting a list. It will also prevent lists from acting as attractive nuisances.
- Do not trust vendors. Senders who are are buying a list or using a co-reg provider must confirm all the addresses before mailing them. There are some suggestions that the SpamZa people are selling addresses. Senders must protect themselves and their assets.
The one thing a sender absolutely does not want to do is add any SpamZa collected addresses to a mailing list. This is not a problem that will go away, it is out there in the wild now. This is the time to start implementing protections, not after the horse has left the barn. Confirmation is one of the better ways to protect an asset against this type of interference.
Followup post: Yet More Data Verification
