Where to draw the line between SPAM and E-MAIL MARKETING?

This thread perfectly illustrates the problem that always comes up when people start talking about this subject.

There is a divergence between the actual legal definition of SPAM, (which is all any marketer NEEDS to worry about) and the popular definition of SPAM (which is probably what any marketer thinking about long-term prospect mining SHOULD worry about).

Now, even though there IS a legal definition of SPAM, it's purposefully vague, and actually is pretty good at making it easy for legitimate businesses to operate legally while being structured so as to punish the people who are actually trying to abuse the internet at large.

In other words, it's worded in a way that benefits YOU, the business owner.

However, the POPULAR definition of SPAM is basically any email I didn't want to get at that particular moment. And the whine about SPAM is so loud that ISPs will just shut you down due to a rogue idiot individual because it's just easier than doing otherwise.

Heavy-handed, self-appointed SPAM cops at the ISP level who operate under the popular definition do more to hurt legitimate email marketing than actual spammers do.

And the dreadful irony is that the same dummies who cry SPAM instead of just deleting an email they actually asked for but didn't want to take the time to unsub... these same dummies are the ones who BUY the CRAP that is marketed in SPAM. The SAME DUMMIES who get scammed and cry loud enough for the FTC to get involved.

And look, I LOVE that we live in a compassionate enough country that has organizations designed to protect consumers from the inevitable wolves that can rise out of a free market society. But let's not kid ourselves about how underfunded and understaffed federal agencies need to act. There is no scalpel, there is only the rusty saw.

They have to respond to the whining with a degree of severity that will appease the whining dummies, regardless of whether it will damage legitimate businesses or not.

It's a complicated problem, and an emergent one, arisen out of the unpredictable collision of several very complex technologies and motivations.

For me, as a marketer, the answer is simple. Be up front about communication, and how you want to engage with the prospect. Tell them what you want to say, how you want to get in touch, and what kind of things you want to share. You shouldn't have to trick people into getting onto your lists, they should WANT to do it because you kick ass.

As for double opt-in, I tend to think that's a best practice solely because in order to get the email in the first place, the marketer was probably sneaky in persuading the user to share it. This is the only way that an ISP can tell that the user WANTS the email, because they can't take your word on how you got their email address otherwise.

It's NOT legally required, but it's considered a best practice. I find when I have used it, the best thing to do is have a 2 part deliverable as part of your "bait".

You deliver part of it in the confirmation email, and the 2nd part of it on the other side of the confirmation link. In part 1, put a reminder to click the confirmation link to get part 2.

It's a pain in the butt to have to do, but if you want to be bulletproof, you have to do it. It's sad that it's basically because we can't trust the prospect to not be an idiot about using email.