- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
I thought the answer to the question posted by Keith Shirley on his blog was quite obvious. I don’t know anyone that enjoys receiving spam. How many people do you know?
I would be one of those bloggers that regularly complain about spammers on my blog. The reason I do it is because I have a very low opinion of those businesses that do.
For me there is a clear distinction between a spam email and a service offering from a potential supplier. If an email arrives in my inbox from a business offering their services and it is clearly meant for me and not emailed to a thousand other similar businesses, I will take the time to respond. Whether it’s a simple “No Thanks” or “Yes Please”, if they have made an effort to find out who I am and what I do and what I could possibly require for my business, I will take the time to respond.
However, when I get a blanket bombed email from a lazy spammer who has sent the same apparently sincere email begging for my business to thousands of people – I don’t see why I should bother having to spend my valuable time responding to someone that was too lazy to do any sort of research.
The sooner we cut out this lazy marketing approach the better, for everyone. I won’t even bother going into statistics, we all know that we all get a lot of spam and no-one needs it.
So to Keith Shirley – we freak out because we are sick and tired of it – Mulley was right to out these lazy arrogant time wasters who for some reason think they are offering some sort of valuable service. For you to provide these time-wasters with the knowledge to get around the legal loops of the anti-spamming law is making a mockery of it all.
Why not provide people with the information and the know how to properly market their business with email and the Internet instead? Then we all wouldn’t have to put up with spam emails.
Related articles by Zemanta
- 4 Secrets To Quickly Build Trust With Your Opt In Subscribers
- SEO Sales Spammers Make the Rest of Us Look Bad But We Should Keep Marketing Anyway
#1 by Dan Sullivan at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
Just because you didn’t ask for it or sign up for it doesn’t of itself make it spam. Some (note I say some not all) of the people who freaked about this supposed spam had no problem when they received a communication in exactly the same format from a different source.
http://dansullivan.blogspot.com/2009/01/green-party-spam-my-friends-good.html
There is a straight forward double standard at work here. The incident that Mulley freaked about was sent to less than twenty people. But when contacted by someone else in the same format by someone else he was fine with it and even encouraged people to get involved in the event. This was not about the medium but was all about the messenger.
This is nothing to do with spam but rather someone overreacting to a mail they got based on the sender. It’s like (bad analogy alert) someone screaming sexual harassment in the workplace if the spotting guy shakes their hand after weeks of letting the fit jock feel them up in public.
#2 by Keith Shirley at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
I’m reposting the comment I made on my blog:
”
I agree – no one likes it. I’m just wondering why people get so worked up about it. I don’t know anyone that puts in the same effort when it comes to the rubbish that’s shoved through their front doors everyday.
I feel that’s much more of an invasion of my personal space and environmentally a terrible waste.
So my question to everyone is maybe – If you get an advert through your door for Satellite TV and one via email – which annoys you more and why.
“
#3 by Tom Doyle at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
@Dan – see this is where I don’t agree with you.
You seem to be talking about the “legal” definition of spam and not what others believe spam is.
I agree it has nothing to do with whether it was asked for or signed up for.
However, as per my post, it’s the fashion in which an email is received/sent that makes it be perceived as spam.
The example you used on your post is a prime example of one that is going to be slated by many of the so called gurus. Straight away – “To: undisclosed-recipients, :”
Instantly they can see that they were just part of a big long list of people and this in fact wasn’t a nice invitation to their lovely day out.
You know when you get an invitation to a wedding , do you get one that you have to pass on to 100 other people?
No, you get a personal one.
If this email was sent to only 20 people, why didn’t they spend an extra few minutes making it personal instead of being lazy and submitting it in one go? Then none of this ranting would have started.
#4 by Dan Sullivan at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
I think they didn’t spend that extra time because they’re new at this and perhaps something of a numptie and it’s not how I would choose to do things myself.
But as I said on my post the reaction isn’t to the format of the message it is in reality to the originator of the message. There was a similar message from a different source as I quoted that the people who freaked out had no problem with at all. So the question is why the inconsistency if it is the format that bugged them?
#5 by Tom Doyle at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
Well it’s hard for me to comment on the other email when I can’t see it, but I imagine it was something to do with the approach.
Being new to this isn’t an excuse in my opinion. A little bit of planning and thought would have made a difference.
#6 by Dan Sullivan at January 24th, 2009
| Quote
The “Other mail” is the one in my post above which people didn’t complain about, the mail that people are complaining about was of the same type but from a different organisation. Hence, my querying of why people are complaining now but not then. Spam is a real problem, without a doubt but if we want and expect people to observe some best practice in their communications then we need to be consistent in the criticism. Singling out one person for attack while endorsing another who does the same simply undermines the whole stance. I’m not suggesting you are doing this, I’m saying a few of those who freaked are.
Being new isn’t an excuse and I wasn’t offering it as one rather it’s a possible explanation and only a possible one at that.
#7 by Tom Doyle at January 26th, 2009
| Quote
Hi Dan
Well again I can’t comment on that situation because I can’t see both emails.
I agree with your points on consistency, but it’s hard for me to comment and this situation when I haven’t seen both emails and I also don’t know his connection with the other 3rd party.
Tom