Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    Hi All,

    Do you use email to market affiliate products or services?

    Do you run an affiliate program and have affiliates who use email to market your product or service?

    Well guess what? Depending on how the rules implementing the Can Spam Act of 2003 are written by the Commission, affiliate managers may have to stop allowing affiliates to market their products by email.

    (This also may put a kaibosh to all the folks getting list owners to endorse products to their list, etc., etc.)

    How is this possible? The provisions in the Act concerning the 'opt-out' obligations or what has been commonly called the suppression requirements.

    In the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on the "original version" of the Bill, published on July 16, 2004 (the "Report"), the authors note at page 12:

    "However, certain industries with extensive marketing affiliates claim that the costs of integrating opt-out systems network-wide may be significant."

    Under the original bill, the Senate offered a definition for unsolicited commercial email stating in essence:

    The term ‘‘unsolicited commercial electronic mail message’’ means any commercial electronic message that is not a transactional or relationship message and is sent to a recipient without the recipient’s prior affirmative or implied consent.

    (See page 15 of the Report)

    As a result, under the original legislative proposal, the 'opt-out' obligations would only apply to 'unsolicited commercial electronic mail message.'

    But as part of the compromise between the House and Senate, the terms "unsolicited commercial electronic email," and "implied consent" were removed from the Bill and it was amended accordingly.

    (There were other amendments, but this was the most significant change.)

    This significantly altered the water under the beam, making the original concerns of affiliate managers even more pressing, as the suppression requirements now apply to 'commercial electronic email messages' sent with 'affirmative consent.'

    Is there a solution to this problem? Yes ... but it requires those who run affiliate programs and affiliates to get off their duffs and ... tell the FTC how to properly write the rules.

    (Along with all the folks into endorsement deals and joint ventures.)

    Like some more good news? A week ago Wendesday, the FTC extended the time for filing comments from April 12 until April 20, 2004.

    So ... folks ... I suggest you get on over to the pages noted below ... read all the nitty gritty details ... take quill to electronic paper and file your comments ... or run the risk of kissing good bye to selling affiliate products and services via email in your e-publication.

    The deadline for filing your comments: April 20, 2004.

    (This post originally contained links to three relevant articles posted online. Because of the protest by some, I have removed the links from the body of the article.

    Instead I have amended my signature file.)

    For the press release issued by the FTC, please use this:

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/canspam.htm

    This press release was subsequently amended. To review the revised press release:

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/canspam.htm

    John Glube
    Toronto, Canada

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Why didn't you just link to the FTC site, are you here just to promote yours?

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    I have already written to congress and demanded a real anti-spam law with teeth. That does require double opt-in, that does require prior contact before mailing.

    While I do not support a global suppression list, my reason varies greatly from you. I actually want an effective way to stop spam. I think this quote from you is pretty telling, spammer.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My specific concern is for harm to
    publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yeah, oh the harm to not be able to spam people. Hell you love spamming so much, as trust points out, you even spam here.

    Chet

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,133
    People, spammers do not care what the government says you can or cannot do, and never have. Spamming has always been a violation to some degree or another, putting a different name on it or making more agressive won't matter. It has always been unethical and a known legal entanglement from pretty much day one.

    Spammers are dishonest people, let's face it. Spammers make it their life to forge, falsify, trick, deceive and lie to people in the privacy of their own homes or offices. They are internet con artist if you will. The law means nothing to people like this, they will just keep doing what they are doing by spoofing addresses, taking control of innocent users machines, or using offshore ISP and accounts which are not subject to any legislation whatsoever. We get the majority of our spam from Asian, particularly Chinese, servers and ISP's for example.

    The bottom line here is this; The Can Spam Act and others like it are really only truly hurting the small business people (like affiliates) and costing the large ones more money to do business (even if they can afford it). The effects are:

    1. For many small businesses, this may preclude them from ever getting into email marketing of their product, service or affiliate partners.
    2. For large business to implement these new measures only serves to add costs to the products and services we consumers buy in the long term.

    So the spammers get off scott free and we are left scrambling and paying for these new ineffective, unmanagable laws that have no real ability to stop anything.

    Good day.

  5. #5
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    ------------
    [[["Spammers are dishonest people, let's face it. Spammers make it their life to forge, falsify, trick, deceive and lie to people in the privacy of their own homes or offices. They are internet con artist if you will. The law means nothing to people like this, they will just keep doing what they are doing by spoofing addresses, taking control of innocent users machines, or using offshore ISP and accounts which are not subject to any legislation whatsoever."]]]
    ------------

    I agree with the above statement 100%

    I hate spam so much that I don't even have, had nor will ever get, buy build nor use a mailing list, I am so sick of the spam that I receive daily that I wish all the spammers get what they deserve soon and the sooner the better. Spammers are worse than canker.

    Sal.
    ...

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    Yes, everyone, <span class="ev_code_GREEN">PLEASE DO WRITE TO THE FTC!!!</span> Make it known that you will support ANY and ALL steps to shut down E-Mail marketing that isn't DOUBLE OPT-IN and PRIOR CONTACT BEFORE MAILING!

    Here's the deal. I have a telephone in my home. I pay for it out of my own pocket. I also pay for an unlisted number. I give the number out to only those I wish to have it. Anyone else, I don't want to hear from you!

    Same goes for E-Mail. I pay for my internet service. I provide E-Mail addresses for MY convenience, and for the convenience of LEGITIMATE visitors to my site. I DO NOT provide it FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. I DO NOT WANT YOUR OFFERS. I DON'T CARE HOW *WONDERFUL* THEY ARE.

    All spammers can drop dead for all I care, they're a worthless lot at best. They can just get out of the gene pool and leave more fresh air for the rest of us.

    I hate

    Andy

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Sending an email to me is not a god-given right. I don't care how much it costs a merchant to make sure I want to receive it.

    I'm not shedding any tears that email marketers are now having some expense in complying with the CAN SPAM law. Legitimate marketers will develop the technology to do it efficiently. It's a cost of doing business. There's nothing in the concept of the WWW that it must provide a free ride for merchants or spammers. If some marketers can't rise to the challenge, so be it.

    Technology and trade agreements surely will kill off the huge amount of foreign-generated spam. The CAN SPAM act was a first step in the right direction. We need to tighten it.

    Wayne

  8. #8
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    I dead opening up my e-mail program and put it off for days at a time due to the spammers. I'll bet I have 4 legit e-mails and 900 spamms waiting on me right now. Make all e-mail have a digi-eSatmp to get delivered as I've proposed all along. Then the con-men and e-mail marketers will have to assign some cost to e-mailing millions of targets.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TrustNo1®:
    Why didn't you just link to the FTC site, are you here just to promote yours? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No ... I am not here to promote my site, although I can appreciate the skepticism, since you don't know me and don't know the time I have spent on this whole issue.

    (Did you read the article?)

    I sent people to the article I had posted as it is designed to get people to think through the issues.

    I gave people the links to the other two sites as they are twinned.

    Some may feel - verified opt-in - hey that's cool - although - it should be "affirmative consent" as defined by the Act, except where someone has become a customer and still you need to make it clear why you want the person's email addy.

    Then permission based marketers would not be confronted with the nonsense of coping with the mess created by those who favor opt-out marketing while the consumer would appreciate marketers for respecting their space.

    Others may feel - all email marketing is spam. Well ... I understand ... but then I was talking to somone on the phone today and we were comparing our spam headlines ... like trivia.

    Others may consider ... laws are a total waste and only hurt the SOHO .. spammers don't care about the laws ... big business has lots of lawyers to figure out ways around the laws and who gets stuck carrying the can?

    Some may consider ... we can never solve the spam problem ... who cares?

    Others may say ... only technology can solve the problem and advocate Penny Black.

    My purpose ... to get people to think about the issues, express there views and let the Commission know how you feel.

    Kind regards,

    John Glube
    Toronto, Canada

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    You have motivated me. I have sent another letter explaining how I explicitly don't want spam from yet another Canadian spammer, all you scumbags moving north of the border to continue spamming.

    You advocate spam first, get permission later. That is spam. You are nothing but an mlm'er looking to spam your get rich quick schemes to the world and think we should all pay for your wonderful message.

    Do you want to leave me with a smile? Stop spamming.

    Chet

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    84
    Maybe you haven't noticed it, but email marketing becomes a business for the few. Hotmail/aol/yahoo/earthlink decides if your 2ble optin list should be in their whitelists or not. In most cases even if you make it to their whitelist, good luck to frequently deliver your message to your customers inbox. Small time optin mailers soon or late will move under a big service like roving.com or msn small business mailing solutions to ensure higher deliverability. Can Spam comes in addition to this. It's not that impossible in 2-3 years the majority of mailouts to come mainly from large affiliate networks.

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    Chet,

    In an earlier post you suggested I wrote:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
    My specific concern is for harm to
    publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You have misquoted me - quite badly in fact as I said no such no thing.

    The article I wrote is advocating an exemption for:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
    But to recognize the unique position of publishers of affirmative consent content based e-zines who also follow generally accepted practices, why not suggest the FTC use its rule making authority to create a specific exception and treat these e-zines as transactional messages?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    An affirmative consent content based e-zine.

    What is that?

    Affirmative consent means the subscriber has specifically requested receipt of the e-zine with disclosure of the e-zine's contents.

    It also raises a number of related issues concerning those who run "affirmative consent" mailing lists.

    I read what trusted wrote. I read what you wrote.

    Please do not attribute quotes to me which are false.

    Kind regards,

    John Glube
    Toronto, Canada

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador mailman's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    mailordering.com
    Posts
    906
    Chez Noir. I resent the term "Scumbags" north of the border. I hope that you are not painting us Canadian's with the same brush. Please bear in mind he is a newbie and joined april15/04.
    He will learn the protocal of being a member of this board. If he does'nt, I am quite sure he will be shut down.

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5
    What I don't get from these spammers is in a million years I wouldn't buy their product no matter what it was. I agree with the double opt-in scheme. Think about it, you have a customer who wants to see your offers, what a concept!

    I took the time one day to trace an email to its origin and guess what, it originated from the Ukraine. Not only are we outsouring IT we're outsourcing SPAM.

    My email is so bad that every morning I login to webmail to delete 150+ pieces of spam so when I get to the office I have the 10 or so messages I actually want. It's out of hand.

    Thanks for listing to my rant.

    Chris

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador phillyburbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    in the PhillyBurbs!
    Posts
    3,097
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I don't get from these spammers is in a million years I wouldn't buy their product no matter what it was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Softhaus ... same here, but you must remember you are NOT a typical Internet user. No one on this board is, just by definition of what we do, so we can't use our behavior as a measuring stick for what most people want and do.

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    Mailman,

    The big light bulb went on ... duh. I thought having monitored this forum for a while I understood the protocol, but clearly I did not.

    So, I have gone in and edited my various posts removing the offending links. I regret the confusion.

    Kind regards,

    John Glube
    Toronto, Canada

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Dear John,

    I did not misquote you. You provided links that you said you agreed with, supported or were written by you. That quote is taken directly off the page, but as with most spammers, you just want to pass the buck, say something, promote something, then say that wasn't you, you meant something else. Gutless little liars not even with enough balls to stand by their own promotions or words.

    And mailman, I love my canadian friends, but you guys need to drop kick all the US spammers heading north of the border for a little less law. I am sure you don't want them either, eh?

    Chet

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,269
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My purpose ... to get people to think about the issues, express there views and let the Commission know how you feel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Isn't your purpose and your second screen name's purpose only to recruit sheep into your MLM scams?

    'nough said.

  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SamyT:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My purpose ... to get people to think about the issues, express there views and let the Commission know how you feel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Isn't your purpose and your second screen name's purpose only to recruit sheep into your MLM scams?

    'nough said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sorry, but that is simply dead wrong.

    ... I am not using a second screen name. I don't market a multi-level marketing product.

    My name is John Glube, I live in Toronto, Canada my contact information is on my web site.

  20. #20
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chez Noir:
    Dear John,

    I did not misquote you. You provided links that you said you agreed with, supported or were written by you. That quote is taken directly off the page, but as with most spammers, you just want to pass the buck, say something, promote something, then say that wasn't you, you meant something else. Gutless little liars not even with enough balls to stand by their own promotions or words.

    And mailman, I love my canadian friends, but you guys need to drop kick all the US spammers heading north of the border for a little less law. I am sure you don't want them either, eh?

    Chet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Dear Chet,

    Your comments are wrong.

    I removed the links because people took offense to my posting them.

    I read each of the pages. The comments you wrote are not on the pages. The first individual Paul Myers does not condone unsolicited bulk email, is opposed to unsolicited bulk email and has been a leading proponent of opt-in legislation in certain circles for over 6 years.

    The second individual, Marlon Sanders does not condone unsolicited bulk email and is opposed to unsolicited bulk email.

    The article I wrote does not say what you suggested.

    I therefore stand by my position, your quote is wrong, you are putting words in my mouth for a malicious motive.

    Follows are the links to the other two sites, so people can read the material for themselves:

    http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php

    - and -

    http://www.yousubscribed.com/canspam/

    The specific quote from the language used is:

    "Requirement of the use of suppression lists will seriously damage many of the legitimate publications available on the net. My specific concern is for harm to publishers who require permission from the consumer prior to adding them to any list."

    You have clearly misquoted the article. I was prepared to ignore the first time as a simple mistake born out of a rush to judgement, because of perceived offence.

    I can only conclude from your continued actions and statements it is to do harm to those who run affirmative consent mailing lists and particularly to myself.

    Enough said. I suggest you remember the rules of Netiquette and act accordingly.

    John Glube
    Toronto, Canada

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Blah blah lie lie blah blah blah.

    I took the quote off the sample letter you linked to.

    But I know your patter, you didn't link to it, zombie martians changed the texts, hackers stole your cookies. Save me the lame excuses, god knows you have written volumes on how much you hate having to have direct consent to send emails.

    Chet

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Is there a law similar to the CAN SPAM Act in Canada?

    Wayne

  23. #23
    Full Member garystarling's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    277
    I have a site where people can download files. It is updated regularly and if they sign up to our newsletter I send an email once a month to tell then what files we have added.

    1) Is this spaming?
    2) Does it become spam if I add an affiliate link to the email?

    All emails comply with the can-spam act, opt out, my name and address, site name.

    Gary

  24. #24
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chez Noir:
    Blah blah lie lie blah blah blah.

    I took the quote off the sample letter you linked to.

    But I know your patter, you didn't link to it, zombie martians changed the texts, hackers stole your cookies. Save me the lame excuses, god knows you have written volumes on how much you hate having to have direct consent to send emails.

    Chet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Chet,

    Absolute nonsense. The letter was not changed. You changed it when you made the post. End of story.

    But here is the real amusing part. Instead of coming out of the closet and going to the source, you run around here attacking people behind a pseudonym.

    I can see we ain't going to be buddies and obviousily Netiquette means nada to you.

    Okay, here is a public challenge. Paul Myers of TalkBiz News wrote the letter. The link to his blog is in this thread. Go over to his blog and post your quote from the letter and put forward your positon, under your real name.

    And no, I have no obligation to prove anything. You are the one who made the accusation, you have to back it up. But, my bet is on you won't post to the blog, instead you will just keep running around making a fool of yourself.

    John Glube

  25. #25
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorthernStudio:
    Is there a law similar to the CAN SPAM Act in Canada?

    Wayne <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hi Wayne,

    No. In Canada, the Canadian Marketing Association came out in 1997 against the sending of unsolicited bulk email and this is part of the code of conduct for online marketers.

    We do have a Privacy Law which in essence says when you collect private information from someone you need their consent before you can use the information for anything other than the stated purpose. So in essence, you can't send the person marketing email without their consent.

    John

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Featured: Mobile Email is Big Business Within the Performance Marketing Channel
    By JCrooks - AffiliateWindow in forum Affiliate Window - AW
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 8th, 2013, 10:02 AM
  2. FTC Halts Qchex Online Payment Business
    By Donuts in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 04:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •