PDA

View Full Version : Is this spam???



DOT
06-08-2010, 09:58 PM
Would this be considered spam or would you consider it improper? Let me use an example. There are various Ferrari clubs in the states with websites that include the email addresses of the officers of the club. We have a tour that I think would be of interest to the officers and club members. The tour includes a visit to the Ferrari museum and also possibly to the factory. Things I believe a Ferrari club member would be interested in. Is it ok to send them an email that includes information concerning our tour? This would be a onetime contact with them unless they show interest by responding to the email.

I don't think it is, but our company's reputation is one of our assets and I don't want to risk it.

Doug

Business Attorney
06-08-2010, 10:24 PM
Yes, I would consider that spam. Since I am an attorney, every publisher of legal books, sponsor of legal seminars and developer of websites for law firms seems to have decided that I should be interested in their products or services.

Just because I am in their targeted demographic does NOT mean I want their spam.

vangogh
06-08-2010, 10:32 PM
That's a tough one. I can argue this either way. Technically I don't think it would be spam. I'm assuming you wouldn't be sending out bulk emails and these people clearly allowed their addresses to be posted in a public place presumably to be contacted by other members of the club.

Just because it's technically not spam doesn't mean it won't be received that way. Let's face it anytime someone sends an email you don't want you consider it spam regardless of whether or not it really is.

If your reputation is one of your assets it might not be worth sending out those emails. It's your reputation that will suffer.

Of course this is a highly targeted group of people who you'd clearly like to reach. Is there a way to reach them without sending the email. Are you a member of these clubs and is there some mechanism to reach out to other members? Is there a way you could mention your tour that reaches these people without having to send an unsolicited email?

If you're not a member can you become one? Can you interact with these people that doesn't involve business, though leaves open the possibility of letting them know about the tours in the future. Take this forum for example. We don't let people start threads promoting themselves, but everyone can have a signature with links back to their sites. We get to know each other and we each do and I know quite a few of us do business with each other.

Is there a way you can get these people to visit even a one page site with info and an form asking for an email address so they can receive information from you?

Ideally I'd try another way to reach these people since you want to protect your reputation. On the other hand I don't think this would necessarily fall into the technical definition of spam.

nealrm
06-08-2010, 11:28 PM
I don't really agree that just because an email is not wanted that make it spam. Spam to me are emails were they don't even try to target specific demographic, they just send out the emails to any email address they can get their hands on. I would also include in that any email that uses a subject line that doesn't reflect the subject, those that are clearly attempts at fraud and chain-mail letters. If we eliminated those 3 items, I think all are emails boxes would be less full.

On the subject if you should send the email. I would. You are sending to a limited, very targeted group that you have good reason to believe would be interested in your product. It is a one time event. If they are not interested, I suspect they would delete the email and in 2 days forget they ever receive it.

dynocat
06-08-2010, 11:37 PM
As you described the situation, I would not take it as spam, even though it wasn't specifically requested information.

If you have a website, could you email the site owner or one of the officers regarding a link exchange? You could let them know what your site offers. If you're willing to link to them, they may be interested in returning the favor.

Harold Mansfield
06-09-2010, 01:12 AM
I can't necessarily call it spam. A letter used to be an accepted way to make contact with people.

I have dropped unannounced resume's on people that weren't hiring and no one ever called that spam.

I may just go in for checking out ad rates to see if you can run something affordable and see if there are any bites.

If nothing else, it will get a conversation going. If he likes it, he may offer a featured article on the site as part of the advertising package...or ask for one.

Steve B
06-09-2010, 06:55 AM
I don't think it even comes close to the definition of Spam. From Wikipedia: E-mail spam, known as unsolicited bulk Email (UBE), junk mail, or unsolicited commercial email (UCE), is the practice of sending unwanted e-mail messages, frequently with commercial content, in large quantities to an indiscriminate set of recipients.

You're not sending it frequently and it is not to an indescriminate set of recipients.

You should Google Can-Spam to make sure you are following the proper guidelines for sending out e-mails like this. For instance, your subject line cannot be misleading and you need to identify your organization (with address) and give the recipients an opportunity to opt out of future e-mails.

If they allow their e-mail addresses to be published in trade magazines, I also can't imagine it would hurt your reputation to provide such relevant information to them. They are probably expecting this type of contact.

Spider
06-09-2010, 10:12 AM
1. Can-Spam does not define spam, it only defines what is legal.

2. spam is unsolicited, commercial e-mail - UCE. If it is unsolicited, commerical in nature and an e-mail it is spam.

3. The message you propose -
There are various Ferrari clubs in the states with websites that include the email addresses of the officers of the club. We have a tour that I think would be of interest to the officers and club members. The tour includes a visit to the Ferrari museum and also possibly to the factory. Things I believe a Ferrari club member would be interested in. Is it ok to send them an email that includes information concerning our tour? ... is unquestionably spam - it is unsolicited, it is commercial, it is e-mail = it is spam.

4. The correct approach would be to e-mail one of the officers of each club - an individual message to each, using their individual name (ie. not bulk) - asking if their members would be interested to know about a tour to the Ferrari works, etc. that your company provides. Only when you receive a reply inviting you to send that information, would it be proper e-mail etiquette to do so.

I hope this helps.

Business Attorney
06-09-2010, 10:56 AM
In asking whether a message is spam, I think that the single question is really two distinct questions.

The first is whether the email message will be considered spam by the recipient. That is really in the eyes of the person receiving the message. References to a "technical" definition of spam is irrelevant to this question. We have had other threads on this forum on this issue and it is clear that among us we have different levels of tolerance of what constitutes spam. My comments in my first post in this thread are directed to this question. I would consider the message spam; others may be more forgiving.

The second question is whether an email message is subject to the CAN SPAM Act of 2003. There appears to be some misconceptions in some of the comments above. Since every email that violates the CAN SPAM Act is subject to a fine of up to $16,000 it is essential that anyone using email in their business (i.e., EVERYONE) understand that if a message in primarily promoting a product or service (as opposed to a transactional or relationship message), the message must comply with all the requirements of CAN SPAM.

Notwithstanding the personal opinions as to whether the proposed message is spam, I can tell you with 100% assurance that from a legal standpoint, the proposed email is a commercial message that must comply with each and every requirement of the CAN SPAM Act.

vangogh
06-09-2010, 12:00 PM
David I think you really nailed the issue. There are two distinct questions, those being the legal one and the personal one.

I was going to ask you a question, but instead found the CAN SPAM (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/ecommerce/bus61.shtm) act online. David already pointed out that any email that is primarily promoting a product or service must comply.

Here are the requirements you have to comply with:

1. Don’t use false or misleading header information
2. Don’t use deceptive subject lines
3. Identify the message as an ad
4. Tell recipients where you’re located
5. Tell recipients how to opt out of receiving future email from you
6. Honor opt-out requests promptly
7. Monitor what others are doing on your behalf

The link above offers more details.

A couple of points


spam is unsolicited, commercial e-mail - UCE. If it is unsolicited, commerical in nature and an e-mail it is spam

Frederick this is your personal tolerance. I'm not disagreeing with you by the way. I don't like receiving unsolicited, commercial email myself. But according to the act as long as the unsolicited, commercial email complies with the 7 items above it's not spam.

That's just reiterating what David said above about the question of spam being two different questions.

Of course the same is true of every other form of advertising I've ever seem. I get unsolicited, commercial snail mail all the time. Apparently it complies with whatever laws it needs to, but it's still annoying. In fact to me it's far more annoying and invasive than its email counterpart. I can't turn on the radio or the tv without seeing or hearing commercials, all of which are unsolicited and unwanted. Same thing for every magazine I read, some of which are more ad than content. Ditto many of the websites I come across each day.

Those of you who are passionately against receiving commercial emails do you advertise in any way? Would you endorse a cold call to acquire a new client? Would you endorse placing flyers on a car windshield? Would you be willing to pay for a radio or tv spot? Why are those more acceptable than an email doing the same thing, advertising your business?

My point is those aren't all that different from the emails you get. I don't like getting them either, but a simple fact of business is you need to market your business. You need to tell people you exist. You need to promote yourself in some way.

Personally I find email, annoying as it is, less offensive than snail mail. Email is digital and very easily deleted. Snail mail is physical and, which cause more problems in trying to get rid of it. I don't send out unsolicited emails, because I too don't have a particularly high tolerance. I don't want people thinking about me or my business the way I think of the people who send me unsolicited, commercial email. I take a very different stand when it's email sent from a list I joined, since I know I agreed to receive that email even if I don't particularly want it at the moment it's sent. I often unsubscribe from those lists, though I never report any as spam.

KristineS
06-09-2010, 02:09 PM
I would be more inclined to go with Frederick's idea. E-mailing the president of the club allows you to get your information out there, and it is probably more likely to get discussed and read than it would if you just e-mailed the members of the club at random.

It also is far safer when it comes to the definition of spam. We do bulk e-mails on a regular basis and have quite a large mailing list and it is all opt in. We will never e-mail you any form of advertising unless you opt to be on our list, and we'll remove you immediately if you request to be removed. As has already been pointed out the Can-Spam act is quite vague, and it just seems safer to err on the side of caution.

Spider
06-09-2010, 02:48 PM
...Frederick this is your personal tolerance. I'm not disagreeing with you by the way. I don't like receiving unsolicited, commercial email myself. But according to the act as long as the unsolicited, commercial email complies with the 7 items above it's not spam...I haven't read the whole act - have you, VG? The page to which you link is an FTC Compliance Guide, not the act, and there is no description of what spam is or isn't on that page. It certainly does not say that if unsolicited, commercial email complies with the 7 items above it's not spam - it says UCE is legal if it complies with the 7 items. So my post has nothing to do with my tolerance level, and I can assure you the framers of this act did not consult me as to what I tolerated and what I didn't.

UCE is spam. If the UCE (ie. spam) complies with the 7 items, it is legal and if the UCE/spam does not comply with the 7 items, it is illegal. But if it is unsolicited, commercial and e-mail it is still spam. Sorry if some of you don't like that but this is the definition that has been in place for the past 30 years or more, and I have found no official change in that definition.

If someone has found a legal definition that says otherwise, I would certainly like to see it and would appreciate a link.

Steve B
06-09-2010, 03:09 PM
Where is your 30 year old definition from Frederick? It doesn't match the definition I found this morning on Wikipedia.

Spider
06-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Where is your 30 year old definition from Frederick? It doesn't match the definition I found this morning on Wikipedia.A simple search for spam on Wikipedia reveals --


Spam may refer to:

Spam (food), a canned meat product
Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired electronic messages
E-mail spam, unsolicited or undesired email messages
"Spam" (Monty Python), a comedy sketch
Spam (gaming), the repetition of an in-game action
Street spam or flyposting, illegal blanket advertising in public places
"Spam", a song by "Weird Al" Yankovic on the album UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff
"Spam", a track on It Means Everything, 1997 ska album by Save Ferris
Smooth-particle applied mechanics, the use of smoothed-particle hydrodynamics computation to study impact fractures in solids
Spatial Production Allocation Model, global rainfed and irrigated crop production and distribution spatially disaggregated at 10 km grid cells, developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute and HarvestChoice.
(Spam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam))
The only ones that relate to this thread are

Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired electronic messages
E-mail spam, unsolicited or undesired email messages

Other than the fact that Wikipedia includes ALL types of messages - not just commerical messages - I see Wikipedia and my definition being in agreement.


Added:

Also, Bill, you may be interested in the following - also from Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act


The acronym CAN-SPAM derives from the bill's full name: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003. This is also a play on the usual term for unsolicited email of this type, spam. The bill was sponsored in Congress by Senators Conrad Burns and Ron Wyden.

The CAN-SPAM Act is commonly referred to as the "You-Can-Spam" Act because the bill explicitly legalizes most e-mail spam. In particular, it does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages. It also prevents states from enacting stronger anti-spam protections, and prohibits individuals who receive spam from suing spammers. The Act has been largely unenforced.


More Added:

The same page also notes --
CAN-SPAM defines a "commercial electronic mail message" as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose)."

.... making the Wikipedia definition and my 30-year old definition exactly the same. And makes my definition and the CAN-SPAM definition exactly the same.

vangogh
06-09-2010, 05:07 PM
My apologies. I haven't read the complete act though for this point I really don't need to.


UCE is legal if it complies with the 7 items

So then any email that complies can't legally be defined as spam. Hence my suggestion that what you were talking about is your personal view of spam. And again I'm not disagreeing with your personal view. Please don't mix the two though.

Here's what Wikipedia says about email spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spam), since that's what we're specifically talking about.


E-mail spam, also known as junk e-mail, is a subset of spam that involves nearly identical messages sent to numerous recipients by e-mail. A common synonym for spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Definitions of spam usually include the aspects that email is unsolicited and sent in bulk. "UCE" refers specifically to unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Notice the work bulk several times. That may not be the legal definition, but it's what most people mean when they refer to email spam.

And again I'll ask what's the difference between sending you an unsolicited commercial email and sending you an unsolicited commercial snail mail? What's the difference between UCE and the flyer on your car windshield? How does UCE differ fundamentally from a cold call or a tv or radio commercial?

Spider
06-09-2010, 05:31 PM
Furthermore, a document from the FTC - Definitions and Implementation Under the CAN-SPAM Act - http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/01/050112canspamfrn.pdf - states---


A few comments suggested definitions of the term “spam.” In the CAN-SPAM Act,
Congress set forth a regulatory scheme built around the defined terms “commercial electronic
mail message” and “transactional or relationship message.” Because this structure is provided in
the Act, it is unnecessary to define the term “spam” in the context of this rulemaking, and the
Commission declines to do so.

So, it seems clear that the CAN-SPAN act does not define spam to any greater extent than has been deduced by the subscriber to Wikipedia - which as previously reported agrees exactly with my 30-year old definition.

vangogh
06-09-2010, 06:01 PM
Umm…did you look at the more specific Wikipedia entry I linked to on email spam which adds the work bulk to the definition or are you choosing to selectively ignore that?

By the way the PDF you linked to says the following:


The thrust of the comments is that the Commission should take care not to impose burdens on legitimate sellers, but rather should focus on reining in senders of bulk unsolicited email messages.

so again the act is meant to go after UCE that is sent in bulk and not from one individual to another.

Also I'm still waiting for answers as to the differences between email that's unsolicited and commercial and other forms of communication that are the same.

Spider
06-09-2010, 06:08 PM
Ah!

I'm pleased to report that I have found the text of the CAN-SPAM ACT of 2003 and it can be seen here -- LegalArchiver.Org: Can-Spam Act 2003 (http://www.legalarchiver.org/cs.htm)

I can also report that the act DOES contain a definition of spam --

In the opening paragraphs, the bill refers to
"(2) The convenience and efficiency of electronic mail are threatened by the extremely rapid growth in the volume of unsolicited commercial electronic mail." And it refers on at least 10 occasions in the initial defining paragraphs to "Unsolicited commercial electronic mail" and only once refers to "bulk unsolicited commercial electronic mail."


I hope this throws some additional light on the matter.

vangogh
06-09-2010, 06:13 PM
The quote you pulled was not a definition of spam. That part was simply Congressional findings in general. I searched for the word spam within the document and excluding the obvious CAN-SPAM here's the second mention of the word


(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes

Emphasis mine. The first mention is right above that quote and reads:


Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems

which is hardly a definition.

Those are the only 2 mentions of the word spam outside of CAN-SPAM and again notice how it's tied to the words bulk. It's the bulk part that congress seems to think is what they need to actively prevent.

Spider
06-09-2010, 06:32 PM
Umm…did you look at the more specific Wikipedia entry I linked to on email spam which adds the work bulk to the definition or are you choosing to selectively ignore that?

By the way the PDF you linked to says the following:



so again the act is meant to go after UCE that is sent in bulk and not from one individual to another...By this time I had found the wording of the act and felt that was more relevant to the discussion.

In searching the act I find only two uses of the word "bulk" and one paragraph as follows--

`(3) MULTIPLE- The term `multiple' means more than 100 electronic mail messages during a 24-hour period, more than 1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 electronic mail messages during a 1-year period.

...from which I deduce that while bulk - multiple - messages are a concern, they are not a prime focus of this legislation. The whole of the act seems to focus on the wording "commercial electronic mail" and "unsolicited commercial electronic mail." (64 mentons of CE, 10 mentions of UCE , 1 mention of bulk CE and 1 of bulk UCE.)


Also I'm still waiting for answers as to the differences between email that's unsolicited and commercial and other forms of communication that are the same.This conversation isn't about other forms of communication, and CAN-SPAM does not include those other forms of communication.

vangogh
06-09-2010, 06:49 PM
How do you draw the conclusion that the act isn't concerned with bulk email from a definition of what multiple emails mean. The quote I pulled above explicitly says it is bulk UCE that's the concern.

And the comparisons I made are very relevant to this thread. By the way you do remember this thread wasn't started as a debate about spam, but rather as a question about a specific situation and whether or not it was spam. As we often do we've taken the thread in a new direction. My questions are very relevant to a discussion of spam. I'm trying to understand why if I send you an unsolicited commercial email it's spam, but if I send another form of unsolicited commercial communication it's not spam. Seems highly relevant to the current discussion, more so that searching the internet for definitions of the words multiple or bulk.

Spider
06-09-2010, 08:27 PM
How do you draw the conclusion that the act isn't concerned with bulk email from a definition of what multiple emails mean... I did not conclude that the CAN-SPAM Act isn't concerned with bulk e-mail. To the contrary - I noted that it IS concerned but not as a prime focus.
I deduce that while bulk - multiple - messages are a concern, they are not a prime focus of this legislation.

I did not draw any conclusion "from a definition of what multiple emails mean." I drew a conclusion from the fact that the act contained "only two uses of the word "bulk" and one paragraph (about multiple message)" compared with "64 mentions of CE, 10 mentions of UCE , 1 mention of bulk CE and 1 of bulk UCE."



..The quote I pulled above explicitly says it is bulk UCE that's the concern... A concern, yes, when used to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes. That is one aspect, but the act covers more than commercial e-mail in the perpetration of crimes. You are right, though - there is no stated definition of the word 'spam,' and the FTC explained that -
A few comments suggested definitions of the term “spam.” In the CAN-SPAM Act,
Congress set forth a regulatory scheme built around the defined terms “commercial electronic
mail message” and “transactional or relationship message.” Because this structure is provided in
the Act, it is unnecessary to define the term “spam” in the context of this rulemaking, and the
Commission declines to do so. I thought the number of times the various terms were used would be indicative of what this act was about -- 64 mentions of CE, 10 mentions of UCE , 1 mention of bulk CE and 1 of bulk UCE. But that is only my reasoning. If you see that to indicate that bulk commercial e-mail is the main focus, that's fine by me.



...And the comparisons I made are very relevant to this thread. By the way you do remember this thread wasn't started as a debate about spam, but rather as a question about a specific situation and whether or not it was spam...Yes, and we both answered that.



...As we often do we've taken the thread in a new direction. My questions are very relevant to a discussion of spam. I'm trying to understand why if I send you an unsolicited commercial email it's spam, but if I send another form of unsolicited commercial communication it's not spam...Because spam, and the CAN-SPAM Act, is about e-mail. Therefore, if it's not e-mail, it's not spam. It might be equally or even more obnoxious, but it cannot properly be called spam. I think this conversation is getting complicated enough without broadening the definition beyond what I'm capable of covering in one post.

nealrm
06-09-2010, 11:23 PM
spam is unsolicited, commercial e-mail - UCE. If it is unsolicited, commerical in nature and an e-mail it is spam.

I don't think there is a exact general use (Not legal use) definition of spam. The origins of the term go back to a Monty Python sketch were the word get repeated again and again. In general use everyone sets their own definition of spam. Frederick's view appear to be at one end of the spectrum. Others may have a more lenient definition. It truth, very few would be bothered by a single, polite, honest email.

KristineS
06-10-2010, 01:02 PM
I'll still think the issue isn't so much whether or not the e-mail is spam as it is whether or not a bulk e-mail will be the most effective way to sell the product. In this case, I would still say that I think getting in touch with the club president and introducing yourself and the idea is a better approach. That way you already have some buy-in with the club when you do propose your idea, and it's more likely to be considered. I'm guessing your conversion rate would be better if you do it the way I'm suggesting rather than sending a blind e-mail.

Spider
06-11-2010, 09:25 AM
Fourteen years ago (1996), I wrote an article on business e-mail. I just checked to see if it's still out there - it is -- BUSINESS NETIQUETTE INTERNATIONAL (http://www.bspage.com/1netiq/Netiq.html)

At the time, a very prominent consuiltant contacted me with --
“ . . . the best educational site I have ever encountered on the web regarding e-mail ethics . . . During my consultancy assignments around the world I have experienced many cultural clashes of the worst kind to be imagined in business. For sure, Business Netiquette International gives a good insight of how to behave in a "cross-cultural" business society, especially in mailing to one and other, or e-marketing.” — Peter R. Luiks, CEO of International Business Liaisons, The Netherlands.

Thought this might help those e-mailing internationally. A few notes about spam are included.

Most of it still applies today.

vangogh
06-11-2010, 12:02 PM
From your article:


Spamming is sending the same message to hundreds or thousands of e-mail addresses in the hope of hitting a few interested people

So I guess it is about sending bulk email.

You also say


Unsolicited e-mail - or junk e-mail - is the electronic equivalent of junk postal mail and direct mail selling.

So there's no difference between UCE and UC snail mail after all.

Spider
06-11-2010, 02:55 PM
From your article:

Quote: Spamming is sending the same message to hundreds or thousands of e-mail addresses in the hope of hitting a few interested people

So I guess it is about sending bulk email.I thought you'd jump on that. I never said it wasn't about bulk e-mail - only that it is not PRIMARILY about bulk e-mail. In fact, I specifically agreed with you that it was in part about bulk e-mail. You will agree, I am sure, that there are ways to send bulk e-mail without it being spam - by it being solicited (as you have often reminded us), and by it being transactional rather than commercial. Even one message that is unsolicited, commercial and e-mail is spam, so bulk is not a necessary component to make a message spam.

In my article, spam and bulk have been mentioned together. That was the focus of my mind at that time - 14 years ago. Plus which, the article is not about spam, it is about business etiquette, and I was not intent on touching all the points of spam, only the points where it related to etiquette. (I also referred to unsolicited - 7 times, but you chose not to draw attention to that.)



You also say

Quote: Unsolicited e-mail - or junk e-mail - is the electronic equivalent of junk postal mail and direct mail selling.

So there's no difference between UCE and UC snail mail after all.There is a great deal of difference between UCE and UC-snail mail. Being equivalent is not the same as. It is equal in force, amount or value, but not admitting of superposition. (Two areas may be the equivalent of each other as to area but a square does not become a circle thereby!) viz. The electronic equivalent of something not electronic. Similar in level of annoyance and bad etiquette, not similar in wastefulness of resources, and not similar in terms of who bears the cost, and so on - They are not the same at all.

vangogh
06-11-2010, 05:11 PM
I thought you'd jump on that

Yeah, how could I not, right? As soon as I saw those two words together in something you had written I had to point it out. And yes I agree you can send out bulk email without it being spam. All mailing lists send out bulk emails. Say this forum went down and it was going to be a few days before I could get it working again, I might use the database (assuming I could access it) to send everyone a quick email letting them know what was going on. I wouldn't think that would be considered spam either.


There is a great deal of difference between UCE and UC-snail mail.

I'm going to disagree here. Let's for a moment take bulk out of the equation. If I'm not mistaken you see any unsolicited and commercial email as spam. So if I were to send you an email with a pitch to buy some product you'd see that email as spam. Is that right?

If I am right the reason you're categorizing it as spam is because it's commercial in nature and you didn't ask to receive it. I don't see how that's any different from someone sending the same pitch for the same product via snail mail. Admittedly the information in each might be different in the details, but we're still talking about the same pitch for the same product. In both cases the pitch is unsolicited. You certainly didn't ask for a letter to be delivered any more than you asked for an email to be delivered.

The only difference between the two is one is digital and one is physical. If the single email is spam then the single snail mail has to be too.

One thing I noticed in your article was that you said the email was harder to dispose because you had to open it and read some to determine if it were spam, where with the letter you didn't have to open it to make that determination. I actually think it's the opposite. Some letters are easy to tell are junk, but a lot aren't. I have a Visa card and Visa sends me real mail and junk mail every month. It's not always easy to tell which is which without opening them. A lot of junk mail is also now in very official looking envelopes.

On the other hand I can tell 99% of the time that an email is something to delete from the subject line alone. The email, being digital is also easier to dispose. You click a button and it's gone. The letter has to be physically thrown out. My mailbox (the physical one) is also on the small side. If I get enough junk mail everything gets jammed in and the mail I want is often folded up and bent. An email doesn't damage the other emails around it.

This is subjective, but for me the snail mail I don't want causes more problems and is harder to discern from the snail mail I need to open. To me it's much worse. The subjective part is what I'm trying to get you to see. I know you feel very passionate about getting emails you don't want. I just want you to understand that the passion you feel against them is subjective. There's nothing wrong with feeling that way. You want to classify it all as spam though, when some of it isn't.

Say for example you and I don't know each other, but I happen to find your site. As a web designer I look through and think I can improve it and help your business. I send you an email with an idea or two and ask if you'd be interested in talking about the site with the idea that you'd be hiring me to work on it. That email would be both unsolicited and commercial in nature and by your definition you'd consider it spam. I don't think that email is spam at all. You may not like receiving it and it may not work on you, but it's hardly spam. It's simply one business trying to gain a new client. It's the email equivalent of a cold call (Cold calls to me are the most annoying by the way).

Personally I don't practice either. I don't like receiving them myself and don't want people associating my brand with them. That doesn't mean I think either is spam or something punishable.

Spider
06-11-2010, 08:24 PM
Yeah, how could I not, right? As soon as I saw those two words together in something you had written I had to point it out... :D


...And yes I agree you can send out bulk email without it being spam. All mailing lists send out bulk emails. Say this forum went down and it was going to be a few days before I could get it working again, I might use the database (assuming I could access it) to send everyone a quick email letting them know what was going on. I wouldn't think that would be considered spam either...Correct. But it would be bulk. As you clearly recognize, bulk is not a determinant of spam.


...Let's for a moment take bulk out of the equation. If I'm not mistaken you see any unsolicited and commercial email as spam. So if I were to send you an email with a pitch to buy some product you'd see that email as spam. Is that right?Correct.


...If I am right the reason you're categorizing it as spam is because it's commercial in nature and you didn't ask to receive it...Correct.


...I don't see how that's any different from someone sending the same pitch for the same product via snail mail. Admittedly the information in each might be different in the details, but we're still talking about the same pitch for the same product. In both cases the pitch is unsolicited. You certainly didn't ask for a letter to be delivered any more than you asked for an email to be delivered...The wording could be exactly the same, it doesn't matter. One is e-mail and the other is not e-mail, and the term 'spam' only applies to e-mail. (Or, more correctly, also to repetitive messages in newsgroups, but as newsgroups do not seem to be around much anymore, I think we can forget them.)

People often refer to tomatoes as a vegetable, because they are used in salads, I suppose, but tomatoes are not a vegetable, they are a fruit. Just because people use tomatoes as a vegetable, that doesn't make them a vegetable. Fruits and vegetables have similar characteristics, but that similarity doesn't make a vegetable a fruit nor a fruit a vegetable. Junk mail is the term generally applied to direct mail advertising and spam is the term generally applied to e-mail advertising. Just because the message is the same that doesn't make them the same, any more than using vegetables and fruits in the same way makes them the same thing.


...The only difference between the two is one is digital and one is physical. If the single email is spam then the single snail mail has to be too...By that argument vegetables are fruits, bulls are cows, turkeys are chickens, laptops are desktops, and opera is rap - sorry, don't buy it!


...One thing I noticed....
..On the other hand...
..This is subjective...
...some of it isn't....Subjectivity noted.



...Say for example you and I don't know each other, but I happen to find your site. As a web designer I look through and think I can improve it and help your business. I send you an email with an idea or two and ask if you'd be interested in talking about the site with the idea that you'd be hiring me to work on it. That email would be both unsolicited and commercial in nature and by your definition you'd consider it spam....I wondered how long it would take us to get to this difficulty. "Commerical" does not necessaily mean "anything involving commerce." The CAN-SPAM Act does a good job of distinguishing between the two....>>
A) IN GENERAL- The term `commercial electronic mail message' means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).
(B) TRANSACTIONAL OR RELATIONSHIP MESSAGES- The term `commercial electronic mail message' does not include a transactional or relationship message.So, the exact wording of your message would determine whether it was commerical e-mail or transactional or relationship e-mail. You could word your message (and nearly did, in fact) so that it was transactional rather than commercial. Obviously, it would be difficult to draw a line that would suit everyone. My suggestion above to the OP was to suggest what I felt would be a transactional message rather than a commercial message.>>
4. The correct approach would be to e-mail one of the officers of each club - an individual message to each, using their individual name (ie. not bulk) - asking if their members would be interested to know about a tour to the Ferrari works, etc. that your company provides. Only when you receive a reply inviting you to send that information, would it be proper e-mail etiquette to do so.



...I don't think that email is spam at all. You may not like receiving it and it may not work on you, but it's hardly spam. It's simply one business trying to gain a new client. It's the email equivalent of a cold call...As stated, you could word your message so that it is not spam, and I would accept it and be pleased to receive it. But you could word it in such a fashion that it was spam - UCE - and it would be dealt with accordingly.



...(Cold calls to me are the most annoying by the way). Personally I don't practice either. I don't like receiving them myself and don't want people associating my brand with them. That doesn't mean I think either is spam or something punishable.As I keep trying to get across, some spam is legal and some spam is illegal. CAN-SPAM merely sets out what spam you CAN send and what spam you cannot. CAN spam, see? You can spam, if you do it like the act tells you.

vangogh
06-11-2010, 10:23 PM
Let me skip over the early parts of your post since we seem to agree in quite a few places and come to:


the term 'spam' only applies to e-mail…

Yes you are technically correct, but if this is all we're going back and forth about I'm going to stop playing. I think arguing over semantics like this is pointless and arbitrary. Spam only applies to email, because that's how someone chose to define it. What I thought were were discussing is what makes spam a bad thing. What makes it something people feel angry about when they receive it? What makes it something that Congress felt the need to enact laws against it?

When I compared it to 'junk mail' it's because the only real difference between the two is the medium through which they are delivered. I don't think the medium is what makes the email variety we call spam bad. I don't see why the medium someone uses the email variety worse than the physical one. To me both are fundamentally the same thing. A communication that you didn't ask to receive and that's commercial in nature. I fail to see how one is somehow worse than the other because of the way it's delivered or because of the words we choose to use to describe them.

If you want to argue that the email variety has a greater cost to society because it uses more energy to produce and send than snail mail or that because the cost is so low more email gets sent out or because the time spent by society deleting email is more than the time spend throwing out junk mail, which consequently costs us more money and productivity, then all of those are fair game. However if we're going to have this argument over the semantics that one is defined with a specific word and the other isn't, again I'm taking my ball and going home.


Subjectivity noted.

Everything you talk about after this is subjective. Take my example email. Again I'm not interested in defining the email as transactional or commercial. The reason is because that's going to be subjective. I'll add a bit to my example email to make that clearer. From my perspective I sent the email to you for one and only one reason, which was to gain you as a client. My sole point for sending the email was commercial in nature. Anything I said that may come across as being friendly was pure BS, to manipulate you into hiring me.

Assuming I've done all that well, there's really no way you're going to tell. I think you agree with this, since you mention that it would be difficult to draw the line. Truthfully that line is based solely on my intention for sending the email and only I can tell you what that intention is.

That's why I think so much of the conversation about spam or junk mail or whatever word or words we want to call this stuff, is subjective. And it's why I argue with you at times when you call certain email spam. Most of the reasons why you're seeing something as spam are purely subjective. You've argued on more than one occasion that the email you agreed to receive when you signed up for something is spam, when by no definition, other than your own subjective one, is that considered spam.

It's also why when sending out UCE, people need to look beyond the legal definitions of what is and isn't spam. Let's see if we can tie this back to the original post in this thread for a moment. Like I said originally I don't think what Doug was thinking of doing would be considered spam by definition, but I do think it will be considered spam by the subjective opinion of many of the people he might send the email to.

If you want to argue this over what technically is and isn't defined as spam then you can only look at the legal definition and you have to accept that any email that complies with the requirements set out by the FTC isn't spam. Everything beyond that is purely subjective.

Spider
06-12-2010, 09:28 AM
I'm not sure how to reply - without going through your post, line for line. I have probably done too much of that already.

It seems you are using the word "spam" as an adjective - to you, an annoying message is spam (whether it is UCE or direct mail advertising DMA or a telephone call) and an acceptable message is not spam (whether e-mail or snail mail or a telephone call.)

To me, spam is a noun, and as such has a specific definition. The definition of spam includes that it is e-mail. Anything that is similar in other ways but is not e-mail cannot be spam - by definition. A table is not a chair nor a dog even though they all have four legs.


UCE and DMA (direct mail advertising) are both annoying and wasteful. You keep saying that you don't understand why people get upset over UCE but not over DMA. Well, I think they do. I do. And seemingly, you do. They are more or less equally annoying. But Doug didn't ask about DMA, he only asked about UCE. I have been trying to keep this thread on topic, so let me say now that I am equally intolerant of DMA.

More so, in fact - I hate the idea of chopping down a tree that took 20 years to grow and provided habitat for birds and other wildlife, that was sawn up and processed into paper, arrives at my door as advertising, is torn up without having been read and ends up in a landfill. 20 years of naure destroyed and sent to a landfill no purpose having been served whatsoever.

But that wasn't the topic of this thread (Or you would have really had an earful of me!!!)

DOT
06-14-2010, 06:47 PM
My first post and it generates four pages of discussion. This is an example of why this is such a great forum. Lots of civilized discussion.

I currently have limited Internet access but plan to respond in detail when I have better access.

vangogh
06-14-2010, 09:03 PM
That's what happens sometimes, especially when Frederick and I get involved :)

Hopefully we didn't take the thread too far off topic for you and there's some useful advice here in response to your question.

DOT
06-21-2010, 06:04 PM
Very interesting thread concerning UCE and SPAM. I from a legal standpoint I understand Frederick's point but from a practical point I seem to side with Van Gogh.

As far as my original question concerning emailing the officers of a car club about one of our tours, our email is directed to the officer of the club by name (if possible) and is not sent in bulk to the entire club. Usually only to the president and vice president. Each email is individual in nature. I can see how this might be considered UCE but at the same time most of the club websites do invite people to contact them concerning club business and items relating to the particular type of car the club is interested in. So on that hand I have to say it is not UCE. If I contacted them by snail-mail the content of our initial contact would be exactly the same.

Last year we sent emails to various Alfa Romeo clubs and did get positive responses from several club officers. We never received any negative responses.

Thank you for everyone's input.

vangogh
06-21-2010, 08:04 PM
I'll repeat what I said originally. I don't think what you're wanting to do is going to be considered spam by the legal definition. If that's the concern I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. To me the CAN SPAM act makes it clear that the concern is bulk email senders, regardless of how spam is or isn't defined. I'd even go so far as to say whether they want to or not they aren't going to be able to go after every person who sends a few thousand bulk emails that are unsolicited and commercial. Also if you adhere to the guidelines set out by the FTC you shouldn't have any problems.

However legal is only one aspect. Just because you may not legally be sending spam if that's how people are going to perceive it then they're going to see you as a spammer and not be likely to do business with you.

From what you're saying here it doesn't sound to me like there's even much risk in being perceived as spam. If you're writing a custom email to the club officers with a genuine offer I have a hard time seeing more than a few possibly taking your email as spam. It seems like a good idea and one you're already seeing a good response from. Like you said these club officers are inviting people to contact them and what you're offering is a good fit for each club.