It’s not often we disagree with a blog posting publicly, but when I read “B2Bs: Your Email Policy Could Be Hurting You” on the Harvard Business Review blog, I couldn’t believe what was actually being promoted as a healthy email marketing strategy.
Before I get off on my (and collectively our company’s) position on this, I want to confirm some valid points in the entry written by Ruth P. Stevens…
Yes, it is true B2B emails are generally exempt from the “permission” requirements of the CAN-SPAM Act. Yes, it is true CAN-SPAM legislation was intended to serve as a consumer protection. And yes, B2B email marketing can differ [slightly] from B2C email marketing.
It appears the concept of permission was void of this article. I must call it how I see it: EPIC #FAIL.
We do not believe the legal minimum is the right “strategy” for your email marketing. The CAN-SPAM act was founded on very basic consumer protections that nearly all Internet users expect. Permission is the basis of trust in an email relationship.
Stevens illustrates an example on how this opt-out practice would play out for a B2B recipient:
“Consider this scenario: Say you attend a trade show and exchange business cards with an exhibitor. Does that exhibitor have permission to contact you by email? Of course. You fully expect to receive email (or phone, or postal mail) follow-up. That’s how you stay informed, build relationships, and do your job.”
Merely attending an event is not permission to receive email messages. Such email marketing should be coordinated with the event organizers. Even if you have a list you purchased.
B2Bs who engage in opt-in-less marketing risk a lot when they surreptitiously send email to people without their explicit consent. Recipients will obviously opt-out and have a very tainted impression of how your organization does business. Recipients who have active online presences could just as easily slam your brand online for marketing to them unsolicited – even if you meet legal minimums.
This begs the bigger question marketers must ask themselves… what’s the difference between B2C and B2B marketing? The answer: nothing.
Who reads your messages you send to someone? A person. Who reports your messages as spam? A person. Who blacklists your IP for spam? A person. Who opens and clicks links in your messages? A person. Who actually purchases your wares? A person.
…I think you get the idea. You are marketing to a person in a business no matter how you slice it.
Why do you think businesses invest thousands into anti-spam software like Postini or IronPort and have tuned up their SpamAssassin filters?
No reputable email marketing company would stand for such an ill-fated “opt-out policy” as Stevens suggests. Like our industry peers, Infusionsoft requires explicit permission to engage in email marketing. No exceptions. If we catch someone who sends emails in an unsolicited manner, we terminate their account. This practice is totally fair and reasonable to uphold the trust, privacy and email deliverability for all our users (and their customers and prospects). We work tirelessly to ensure your messages get delivered and an “opt-out policy” is suicide at best for you and your business.
If you’re still marketing like it’s 1995, it’s time to re-think your strategy.
We tip our hats to DJ Waldow from Blue Sky Factory for stirring up the discussion on this article on HBR. We stand united in support for good email practices regardless of B2B or B2C.
What do you think? Should marketers be free to send unsolicited email messages to a B2B recipient knowing they can opt-out? Would love your feedback here.
Posted In: Email Marketing
Pingback: BEST PRACTICE: Use email wisely