Are safelists really safe?
I am a safelist owner (InteractiveSafeList) and of course that I tried to publish my articles related to safelists on few article directories. This is how I found that safelists articles are sometimes "tolerated" but in a lot of places safelists are considerate as not desirable.
Defrauded by this attitude I wrote the following ticket on Ezinearticles.com:
"I was surprised to found on your TOS (in editorial guideline in fact) that your site consider that email safelist [...] are not a honest business.
I'm an email credit based safelist owner and I never felt until now that I am doing something wrong. I HATE spam (check my site if you are so kind). This is why I decided to create a new safelist. This term, safelist, mean in fact "safe from spam".
I kindly ask you to tell me if possible, why you consider safelists as not desirable. Maybe I will start to reconsider my business and my believes. I will really appreciate any answer.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adrian Ilias"
I was really surprised to get an answer and I was even more surprised by the responder: Christopher M. Knight the CEO of Ezinearticles. But what really shocked me was the answer:
"Hi Adrian,
We've been involved in the permission-based email list management business prior to our current media/platform business (EzineArticles.com) since 1996.
EVERYONE, and I mean everyone involved in the permission-based email newsletter hosting industry knows that "safelists" are dirty. It's just the way they are. There is nothing safe about them. They might as well call them "spam lists" because that's what they mean to us.
It's like me saying, 'to be honest' before I make a statement. Why do I have to say 'to be honest' if I already know that I am?
If an email list is permission-based with confirm and/or double-opt in, then why call it a 'safelist'? That makes no sense to us. Sorry, we will never reconsider our position on this. Safelists will always equate to us to be 'spamlists'...and therefore, wrong.
Sincerely,
Chris Knight"
Coming from somebody with so huge experience on e-mail based advertising methods I must take its answer into consideration (look to Christopher-Knight dot com about page to find more about Mr. Knight).
But I cannot figure why safelists have this extremely bad reputation since was created special to offer a "safe" place to advertise (double opt-in mechanism and others). It is this just "a case" or we have a general bad look on safelists? Judging by my above experience and by the way that a lot of online payment systems, classic advertising systems or classic magazines are looking to safelists the situation is not good.
Where is the true? I know I don't do anything wrong, at opposite I can say.
What can be done to change this situation?
I will appreciate any answer because right now I am little confused about this.
Sincerely,
Adrian Ilias
Defrauded by this attitude I wrote the following ticket on Ezinearticles.com:
"I was surprised to found on your TOS (in editorial guideline in fact) that your site consider that email safelist [...] are not a honest business.
I'm an email credit based safelist owner and I never felt until now that I am doing something wrong. I HATE spam (check my site if you are so kind). This is why I decided to create a new safelist. This term, safelist, mean in fact "safe from spam".
I kindly ask you to tell me if possible, why you consider safelists as not desirable. Maybe I will start to reconsider my business and my believes. I will really appreciate any answer.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adrian Ilias"
I was really surprised to get an answer and I was even more surprised by the responder: Christopher M. Knight the CEO of Ezinearticles. But what really shocked me was the answer:
"Hi Adrian,
We've been involved in the permission-based email list management business prior to our current media/platform business (EzineArticles.com) since 1996.
EVERYONE, and I mean everyone involved in the permission-based email newsletter hosting industry knows that "safelists" are dirty. It's just the way they are. There is nothing safe about them. They might as well call them "spam lists" because that's what they mean to us.
It's like me saying, 'to be honest' before I make a statement. Why do I have to say 'to be honest' if I already know that I am?
If an email list is permission-based with confirm and/or double-opt in, then why call it a 'safelist'? That makes no sense to us. Sorry, we will never reconsider our position on this. Safelists will always equate to us to be 'spamlists'...and therefore, wrong.
Sincerely,
Chris Knight"
Coming from somebody with so huge experience on e-mail based advertising methods I must take its answer into consideration (look to Christopher-Knight dot com about page to find more about Mr. Knight).
But I cannot figure why safelists have this extremely bad reputation since was created special to offer a "safe" place to advertise (double opt-in mechanism and others). It is this just "a case" or we have a general bad look on safelists? Judging by my above experience and by the way that a lot of online payment systems, classic advertising systems or classic magazines are looking to safelists the situation is not good.
Where is the true? I know I don't do anything wrong, at opposite I can say.
What can be done to change this situation?
I will appreciate any answer because right now I am little confused about this.
Sincerely,
Adrian Ilias