On July 7, the
Federal Trade Commission's new rules for the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 went into effect. If you are an e-mail marketer, you probably already have heard about this. But do you know exactly how those changes will affect your sending practices? To ensure you are in total compliance with the law, let's look at the key issues of the new CAN-SPAM requirements.
If you don't know anything about CAN-SPAM, you're not alone. Unfortunately, 81 percent of e-mail marketers are unaware of the CAN-SPAM Act and its requirements. Here's a quick recap: In 2004 when the law took effect, a lot of topics were unclear. It didn't answer a lot of questions surrounding multiple senders or forward-to-a-friend. Also, industry critics were concerned that the 10-business-day rule for removing opt-out requests from a mailing list was too long. It was clear that a little tweaking would be necessary to clear up confusion among commercial e-mail marketers.
Now here we are, four years later. The new CAN-SPAM requirements clearly define "the sender," and answer some marketers' concerns around multiple-sender best practices. Here are the main points the new rules clarify:
* Multiple Advertisers -- This is where it gets a little tricky, but stay with me. Multiple advertisers have the option of designating one person or party among them as the "CAN-SPAM sender." This would actually work out to their advantage, as it significantly reduces the complexity of complying with the law in a joint-marketing scenario. If multiple senders do choose to do this, the "designated sender" may be the only one in the "From" line and is the only sender required to include an unsubscribe link and physical address.
In order to qualify as a sender in a multi-advertiser scenario, the law is also much more favorable now. To qualify as the "CAN-SPAM" sender, one must first be "advertising or promoting" one's own products. Secondly, you must be an initiator of the e-mail. Only "initiators" that advertise their own product, service or Web site can qualify as a sender. After the above two conditions are met, the "From" line must show who will be the "designated sender."
Keep in mind that this new "designated sender" rule is optional. Marketers can still have two senders in an e-mail if they want to, so that all parties are fully compliant. This is important to note, because if the "designated sender" fails to comply with the law, all other marketers in that message are now potentially liable for compliance.
* Opt-Out Process -- The new requirements specify that senders cannot complicate the opt-out process. You can only require an e-mail address on the opt-out page that visitors get to when they click the "unsubscribe" link in your e-mail, and you can't require a user to visit more than one Web page to opt out.
If you require users to log in to an account with a username and/or password to "manage their e-mail preferences" when all they want to do is unsubscribe, you're out of compliance. If you have an opt-out survey or a five-page opt-out process designed to make your customers think twice before opting out, you are definitely not in compliance with the law. Charging a fee or requiring any information beyond their e-mail address is now strictly prohibited.
Nicely thought out.
So. If i were unethical I could just script all my key customers email addresses to be unsubscribed from all my competitors email lists? Hmmmm.... A single page opt-out is OK - as long as you can send a confirmation email to the requested address. If you cannot confirm the opt-out request by sending an email to the address that requests the opt-out, how can you be sure that it is legitimate. (not sure if this 'confirmation email' is OK or not)
And processing forward to a friend stuff through opt-out lists... Not cool. It makes your business look incompetent if someone tries to use your forward something to a friend, or use any sort of email this page/email to a friend feature and it continually doesn't go though.
Nonsense
This is nonsense. Father Congress has complicated business again. We need to keep the Government out of this. Everyone who damages another for sending spam should be required to pay for the damages - in court if needed. But to convert innocent Joes' into guilty criminals with stupid rules represents no one. The only effect is to increase the power of the politicians and destroy the economy by suppressing the free market.
Only half steps
When we figure out how to can the spam coming from other continents, then we will have achieved something. The current measures are admirable but they do little more than set standards for U.S. emailers. Of the hundreds of spam messages I receive daily nearly all are from fake "from" address and come to me from outside the U.S.