Five by Five

I recently read about updates to the US 2003 CAN-SPAM Act (not legally binding in the UK but nevertheless presents a good package of best practises). Two snippets caught my eye:

• The recipient must not be required to provide anything more than email address and associated opt-out preferences for that email address (i.e., no password, account number, name, etc. can be required)
• The opt-out mechanism must rely on either a reply email or a visit to a single Internet Web page and nothing more (i.e., multiple Web page opt-out processes are no longer allowed).

Now I can immediately think of several brands where hitting the unsubscribe button transports the user to an account login page, steering them to update their preferences to be removed from future mailings. In many ways I’m an advocate. If the customer can control the frequency and type of communication they receive rather than being forced to blanket-unsubscribe, everyone’s a winner. However, new CAN-SPAM definitions throw this practise into doubt. Of course, the reasons for the updates are obvious. As a consumer I can think of nothing more frustrating than trying to unsubscribe only to be confronted with an account login, the details of which I’ve long since forgotten. So what’s the marketer’s solution? Use that single page to maximum benefit. In the first instance, steer the customer to update their preferences. Remind them of the benefits they’re currently receiving. But on the same page, leave a one-click unsubscribe option open too. Properly executed, not only should it be possible to persuade a healthy proportion of customers to remain in the communications programme, but even better they’re providing more data which can be used for better-targetted emails in the future.