PDA

View Full Version : Fax Blast - still exist



rebelnetworks
06-07-2010, 10:03 AM
I have had a interesting proposition offered to me. I belong to a barter company and have some excess funds - the owner suggest i try a fax broad cast service. he can send out like 75,000 faxes - in 10 days for me.

do people still sell using this method? - just wondering anyone thoughts on this?

Business Attorney
06-07-2010, 10:37 AM
In the United States, by law you can only send faxes to someone with whom you have an existing relationship or who has publicly listed their fax number. For each and every fax number that doesn't fall into one of those categories, the recipient can sue you and collect substantial damages. So you need to be VERY sure that the list is clean.

As an aside, I HATE junk faxes and personally hold it against anyone who sends them. Not only would I not respond to a junk fax, I would never do business with anyone after receiving a junk fax from them. I think a lot of people feel the same way, which is why Congress enacted the law restricting and penalizing junk faxes.

vangogh
06-07-2010, 10:48 AM
I wouldn't go for the fax blast. Anyone who receives one is not going to think highly of your company. I'm with David. Send one to me and I'll never do business with you. Send me a second one and I'll actively spend time making sure you don't sell to anyone else either. A junk fax is sending spam and charging the person who receives it.

KristineS
06-07-2010, 01:30 PM
I hate fax blasts. Everyone one our companies get is trashed immediately. I would never purchase anything that I saw advertised in an unsolicited fax.

billbenson
06-07-2010, 05:04 PM
You'll make a lot of enemies that way. Unless its a PO, I don't want to see a fax.

Steve B
06-07-2010, 07:28 PM
I've never owned a fax machine. It's pretty old technology - I just use a scanner. But, if I had a fax machine, I'd make sure I never bought anything from a fax blast.

hdm
06-08-2010, 09:49 AM
Hello rebel

I can only agree with the others that have replied. Most faxes are just an annoying waste of paper and ink. I also don't want to receive one unless it's a purchase order.

The only faxes we send are letter proofs, for our client's approval before we start the print run.

cbscreative
06-08-2010, 04:56 PM
In case all the votes aren't in yet...don't do it.

Harold Mansfield
06-08-2010, 07:33 PM
I don't even have a Fax machine anymore and any old Fax number that's out there for me is dead.

DOT
06-08-2010, 09:41 PM
When I see a fax blast the first thing I think of is, this is some sort of scam.

vangogh
06-08-2010, 09:45 PM
I think this might be one of the few times we all agree on something. The message is using a fax machine for unsolicited advertising is bad, very very bad.

rebelnetworks
06-17-2010, 10:58 PM
i am new on the forum and i got all to agree to something -- hahaha
move over Obama and Harper - should look for a higher position -

but in reality - pretty easy question - i said no to it as well --

Spider
08-20-2010, 09:08 AM
Just like e-mail (the person who receives it has to pay for the internet connection) - and telemarkeing (the person who receives the calls has to pay for the telephone service) - and television and radio advertising (the person receiving it has to pay for the teleision or radio and the electricity to run it.)

The only "push" advertising of this nature that the receiver does not pay for is direct mail advertising. Except the whole world pays because of the environmental issues of tearing down trees to make paper to turn into leaflets and brochures and envelopes that few people read and send immediately to the landfill.

greenoak
08-20-2010, 09:16 AM
we hate them of course......they take our paper our ink and we dont want them...
frederick...i try never to mail anyone anything that they would throw away without reading! maybe im in a dream world....!ha ha...

prettyimpress
08-21-2010, 09:15 AM
Have you tried this way? Got any effect? In my imagination, most people treat this kind of fax as garbage, and never see it carefully. Maybe email is better than fax I guess.

cbscreative
08-21-2010, 12:53 PM
Maybe email is better than fax I guess.

Not if the recipient did not opt in. Unsolicited email is just as bad. Yes, there must be an acceptable response rate for spammers to keep sending garbage, but it's still bad, even illegal. Most spam comes from outside the US because of laws that make domestic spam rightfully prosecutable. Even if you skate around the law, it's still bad taste.

nowms
11-22-2010, 02:13 AM
Rebelnetworks,

The tactic in its self (while it was legal) was very cost effective and did yield decent response rates as well as voice blasts. But with the change in the legislation back in 2002 the liability makes it not worth it at all. You face up to $500 in fines for each and every unsolicited fax thousands for voice blasts. You may only see a few complaints but there have been many cases on the state and federal level that have turned into class action lawsuits in which phone records and data on the fax campaign were subpoenaed resulting in massive fines.
Your best bet is to stick with less intrusive and legal marketing campaigns to drive sales. You may spend quite a bit more, but if the campaign is well planned and executed you should still see a favorable ROI. Best of luck!
Matt

vangogh
11-23-2010, 12:27 AM
It's hard to believe they were ever effective since they're so obnoxious and they put the cost of the marketing directly on the customer. Regardless of whether or not they worked at one time, fax blasts are definitely something to stay away from now.

nowms
11-24-2010, 09:48 PM
Vangogh,

When I first came across it I thought the same thing. But very surprisingly if the offer was pertinent or something of value, and the piece was designed right, the response was tremendous. Still, I would never personally do it for my own company.

vangogh
11-27-2010, 10:57 AM
I believe you about them working if the offer was pertinent. Just seems strange. I guess the lesson is if you make an offer relevant to someone, if it's something they want, then the method of delivery may not matter, even if that method is something most people would instantly consider spam or intrusive. I've always tried to make the point that spam is in the eye of the receiver. If you're looking to buy pharmaceuticals for example and you receive bulk email attempting to sell you some, you probably don't see it as spam, even if it meets every definition of what spam is.

CloptonCapital
03-21-2011, 02:04 PM
In the United States, by law you can only send faxes to someone with whom you have an existing relationship or who has publicly listed their fax number. For each and every fax number that doesn't fall into one of those categories, the recipient can sue you and collect substantial damages. So you need to be VERY sure that the list is clean.

As an aside, I HATE junk faxes and personally hold it against anyone who sends them. Not only would I not respond to a junk fax, I would never do business with anyone after receiving a junk fax from them. I think a lot of people feel the same way, which is why Congress enacted the law restricting and penalizing junk faxes.

Fax blasting is a bad business practice, so you shouldn't do it. But, the problem with the law being referenced here is that it is so vague people have actually beaten fax blasting charges by saying they visited the persons website or saw one of their advertisements. The definition of prior relationship is very weak.