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.

The bods at Goodmail must have a big marketing drive at the moment. I’ve been questioned about their product, CertifiedEmail, a number of times recently.

The answer, “yes, we can send CertifiedEmail,” is kind of by-the-by. I’m more interested in its relevance in the UK market and the potential negative aspects.

CertifiedEmail, in a nutshell, is paid-for authentication of emails. An email sender can enter into a relationship with a number of CertifiedEmail-compatible ESPs whereby it will pay a fixed charge for each email it sends. In return, the ESP will place the email directly in the recipient’s inbox, bypassing spam filters.

Email authentication’s nothing new. Buzz phrases such as ’sender policy framework’,’sender-ID’ and ‘domain key registration’ have been batted around for years. CertifiedEmail is perhaps unique in that it’s paid-for.

The pros? Goodmail argue that it’ll restore trust between commercial and non profit senders and individual email recipients. They assure us that it’s only available to kosher establishments - those who sweat day and night to ensure they’re sticking to email best practises.

The cons? Some groups are taking a different view to Goodmail. There has been uproar claiming that CertifiedEmail serves to legitimise spam. After all, it seems that anyone with enough cash in their back pocket can hand over the readies to guarantee that the email recipient, willing or not, is going to see their message. And what about those who don’t cough up? Aren’t genuine family and friends getting a raw deal as their entirely innocuous dispatch has to run the gauntlet?

But pros and cons mean little if the product isn’t actually relevant. Currently CertifiedEmail boasts affiliation with AOL, Yahoo and a smattering of lesser providers. While the first two may carry some weight over the pond, in a Hotmail-dominated UK market I just can’t see companies trampling over each other to invest in this product.

Of course if the Goodmail marketing gurus are worth their salt, we could see a wave of interest in CertifiedEmail in the future. For now, one to watch.