|
Number
25: October 22, 2003
Please forward this newsletter to your colleagues and friends. If someone
sent this to you,
now so you don't miss an issue.
This week in Katydid:
California
Engineers Spam Shortage
I can't image this law will stand up in higher courts but it's worth
examining your liability. California last week adopted Senate Bill 186,
which bans any form of unsolicited e-mail. Individual recipients or even
the California Attorney General could sue you for $1,000 per e-mail even
if you buy or rent a list from a third party.
Microsoft had a lot of influence on the early form of the bill hoping
to build credibility in their position against
spam. The bill allows
companies to continue to market to their established customers, which is
fine for Microsoft since nearly all computer owners are customers of
theirs in some respect. However, it leaves those who want to build a
customer base in California with few options. There's always direct mail
and billboards.
I'm not sure I'm cynical enough to believe that Microsoft used their
influence to make it harder for small and medium-sized competitors to
build awareness. However, with the elimination of one of the most
economical and effective marketing tools available, companies with the
budget to use traditional media to develop customers have the playing
field tipped to their advantage.
I highly recommend reading the analysis of Bill
186, as many states
will look at the language of this bill to develop their own. One of the
requirements of the bill is that you provide an opt-out phone number or
e-mail address in your correspondence with California customers. Another
provision leaves a lot of room for interpretation: you may not use any
e-mail subject line that might be misleading.
Additionally, it stands to reason that if you can only send e-mail to
individuals whom you have a relationship with – whom have contacted you,
requested information, or purchased something from you – then you need
to keep records of those transactions. If you do a lot of business with
California, you may want to seek legal advice on what constitutes
positive proof of a request for contact. Commonly employed internet
forms may have a time and date stamp, but most are passive systems and
don't require positive verification. For example, positive proof might
require that once you receive a request for information online, you
would need to send an e-mail to the recipient verifying their request.
If the recipient does not reply than you would remove them from your
mailing list. This is similar to the process used by many newsgroups.
We need to take laws like these seriously because even if they don't
hold up, the costs of fighting them in the meantime can be onerous.
However, I noticed one thing that gave me hope. It seems that current
law in California requires that all unsolicited e-mail have 'ADV:'
prefix the subject line (ADV: ADLT for adult-oriented content). This has
been true since 1998 and I can't remember the last time I saw a company
observe the law, nor can I remember seeing anyone prosecuted for it.
Top »
TiVo
Changes Strategy
No sooner than I write an article on TiVo do I hear about a change in
strategy. In the October 20 edition of the New York
Times, Seth Schiesel
writes that TiVo is conceding the DVR race and focusing their efforts on
becoming a technology provider for DVR manufacturers and cable
companies. Schiesel writes:
TiVo, which is based in Alviso, Calif., is scrambling to remake its
business model. While sales are expected to be robust this holiday
shopping season, the long-term viability of stand-alone DVR's appears
dubious. In response, the company is reinventing itself as a supplier of
software to other companies that want to make their own DVR's. (NYT)
While not good for TiVo stock, this seems like a winning strategy.
This way, they allow the manufacturers to educate the market on DVRs,
while providing them a premium upgrade in the form of the TiVo service.
Since TiVo's value makes more sense in contrast to the standard DVR
features, marketing can focus on the upgrade messaging.
The net effect
may be that TiVo's brand recognition may have sold the cable companies
and DVR manufacturers on the value of the service enough to stonewall
while developing competitive products. Sometimes being first only makes
you a target or template.
Top »
Outlook
2003 Clarification
After reading my previous article on the impact Outlook 2003 would have
on marketers, one careful reader pointed out some language that needs
clarification – the reply-to address.
In my article, I used the nomenclature common to the list brokers
I've encountered. When list brokers ask for an e-mail address, they
usually ask for the 'reply to' address. Since the broker is sending mail
on your behalf, they want replies to go to you. Technically, the e-mail
is from them and they want it to appear to be from you, so they also
will use your name as the alias (the 'from name') for their e-mail
address.
E-mails have a number of fields; among them is a 'from' e-mail
address, a 'from' alias (the plain text name), a 'to' e-mail address,
and a 'to' alias. Additionally, the 'reply to' address is not usually
visible in Outlook. It's buried in the header. (You can see the header
in Outlook by opening the e-mail and selecting View-Options.) Your mail
client uses the 'reply to' address when you reply to an e-mail. List
brokers commonly refer to the 'from' address as the 'reply-to' address.
This is important for understanding how the trusted sender and
trusted recipient lists behave. Outlook uses the 'from' e-mail address
for the trusted sender and the 'to' e-mail address for the trusted
recipient list. The reply to e-mail address is used only when actually
replying to an e-mail. Outlook also uses the 'from' e-mail address and
alias when adding a sender to contacts.
Outlook 2003 filters e-mail as it comes in. If the e-mail 'from'
address is in the trusted sender list, it keeps the e-mail in your
Inbox. If the e-mail 'to' address is in the trusted recipient list, it
also stays in your Inbox. Also, you can select to allow any e-mail
address in your contacts folder to be trusted. If the e-mail is not
trusted, it goes directly to a Junk e-mail folder, where you can review
it later. Also, users can add specific domains to the trusted lists, so
they can trust everyone from ktdcommunications.com without having to
select each e-mail address.
Finally, a recent article from MarketingSherpa points out that AOL
9.0 also blocks external content. Essentially, the same recommendations
apply for AOL 9.0 as for Outlook 2003.
Top »
Thanks for Reading
This e-mail newsletter spreads mainly by word of
mouth. Please forward it to your colleagues and friends. Also, you can
read other back issues.
If you have suggestions of web sites to review, writing that buzzes,
or a new way of looking at things, let me know. Send your suggestions to
.
If you received this newsletter from a friend, please
today. Our subscriber lists are confidential; we never sell or rent our
lists to third parties. If you want to
from this newsletter,
please let us know.
Kind regards,
Kevin Troy Darling
Top »
|
