Single Opt-in vs. Double Opt-in. A Real Controversy?

[ezine ads]

"Single opt-in is the way to go". "No way! Double opt-in is the way because ... this and that".

The truth is that each opt-in form has its own advantages and its own disadvantages.

Then ... Can someone actually say "This form of opt-in is better"? As a matter of fact, the answer is NO, and that's why the whole controversy.

The truth is that someone may only say, "This form of opt-in is better FOR ME"

Why is that? Because on a case by case basis, you may see that a certain disadvantage for another person, it may not be a disadvantage for you.

For example, if you sell ad space in your newsletters, then you may not want to cheat your advertisers by adding to your list also "subscribers" who actually never receive your emails. That's why you may want to go for double opt-in.

However, if you send only commercial emails that are for your own profit and you don't sell ad space, then you don't have to worry about the fact that some subscribers may actually never receive your emails. That's why you may want to go for single opt-in.

And so on and so forth ...

Conclusion: single opt-in vs. double opt-in controversy is just an artificial controversy due to a wrong approach based on the wrong thinking "What is best for me it has to be best for you, no matter whether I know your goals or not."

What do YOU think?

[Neil Morgan]

Hello Adrian

Good post.

It's a very good idea to apply this to every "what's the best...?" thread that you read on this and other forums.

Or maybe it's not.

Well, it is for me.

But maybe not for you.

Cheers,

Neil

[ezine ads]

Thank you, Neil. You're right and that's the whole point of the post or ... behind the post.

It doesn't exist "the best whatever". It only exist "the best whatever for you". Why? Because we all are different. We have different skills, different goals, different "this or that"

The same applies to "whatever thing sucks" (or "whatever method is dead") and many other stereotypes.