Three Alternatives to the Permission Gamble

In a post at Email Marketing Reports, Mark Brownlow considers the argument that opt-in permission isn't strictly necessary. "The definition of spam has shifted broadly from 'email not asked for' to 'email that is not wanted,' implying that relevant or valuable email will not be considered spam," he explains.  But you're making a mistake, he warns, if you believe all non-subscribing recipients will have the same reaction to your messages—however relevant they might be.  "The more you move away from the permission optimum (explicit opt-in), the greater the proportion of your list who will see your emails as spam," he says. "Improving the relevancy/value of those emails will compensate in part for permission sacrifices, but it clearly won't eliminate all 'this is spam' reactions." And remember—ISPs tend to be even less forgiving.  Brownlow recommends that, instead of taking a permission gamble, you adopt strategies like these for higher-volume campaigns: Increase frequency to all opt-in subscribers. You don't want to overdo it, but it might be that you're currently under doing it.  Over-mailing "does not mean 'sending more emails than you do now,'" he notes. "Over-mailing means over-mailing." Ask subscribers whether they'd like increased frequency. "If you're worried about increasing frequency across the board," he says, "then consider standalone emails, sidebars and/or secondary calls to action that invite ... subscribers to sign-up for more mail." Send more email to your "best" subscribers. Customers who've had the most enthusiastic responses to your past email campaigns are natural candidates for increased frequency.

Conclusion: Don't gamble your life away. Sending bulk marketing emails to customers who didn't explicitly opt in to your marketing messages is a risky game—and one you will likely lose.