The Email Wars

In light of all the dialogue that is going around the web, email blogs, twitter, and the broadcast news (video here) about the use of email marketing to promote the healthcare agenda I wanted to share some of my thoughts with you on it. Now this is not a post pro or con against the bill but simply one to open up a dialogue about is the use of email marketing RIGHT for the president to use (or the guise of this email the committee Organizing for America) to advance this agenda?

Now I have opted into the Barack campaign emails. I have not unsubscribed, so I do expect to get messages from his list. I want to make sure that is clear. But what is not clear to me is who this is really from? It is coming from the President’s opt in list (or is it the candidates list), it is from Mitch Stewart but from a Barack Obama email address, it references the Barack web site, uses his image, and yet it cites that it is coming in the footer from some other entity. Truly confusing to me.

What I am most confused about is if this is on behalf of the list I signed up for OR from some other group now using it? I knew that after they built such a massive database that they would continue to use it, and I love some of the emails from this same list from other people advancing days of service, etc but should it be used to advance an agenda that is clearly one that confuses people of who it is from? Who know owns/manages this list and should I expect to continue to get mixed messages from all sorts of people that are political organizing in nature and not what I would expect as being great communications from the white house?

And even deeper is the idea/notion that Can Spam left a loop hole for politicians and non profits to use while the test of America is subject to the Act and follow it closely? Should politicians be able to send you email after a campaign is over? Should they be able to use these lists to promote an agenda and use other people in the email as who it was paid for by?

I am not sure, but I can tell you that I truly only expect to get things from the president not others. Does this mean that they should do a reconfirm email to the list and clear state the expectations that we should all be aware of? If this was a company that was bought or acquired by another company we would clearly see a reconfirm or awareness message be sent to the list to let them know to unsubscribe or to give permission again right?

What is the best practice here when it comes to politicians? Or is there one?

I will leave you that to think about as I think we all need to press the issue as email becomes a powerful and often used medium after a campaign. Below is the Can Spam Act that talks about this from 2003. Maybe it is time to revisit it and update it.

Pg 62 – http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/01/050112canspamfrn.pdf

“There are several statements in the legislative history expressing the intentions of members of Congress that CAN-SPAM not encroach on transactional or relationship email communications, or on fully-protected non-commercial speech. For example, Senator Wyden expressed his intent that CAN-SPAM not interfere “with a company’s ability to use e-mail to inform customers of warranty information, provide account holders with monthly account statements, and so forth.” 149 Cong. Rec. S5208 (Apr. 10, 2003). Similarly, Representative Sensenbrenner stated that “the legislation concerns only commercial and sexually explicit email and is not intended to intrude on the burgeoning use of email to communicate for political, news, personal and charitable purposes.” 149 Cong. Rec. H12193 (Nov. 21, 2003).”

UPDATE:

As I wrote this post the White House released a statement on it. Not going the distance, but a start.

“The White House said Sunday night that it will change its e-mail sign-up procedures after some recipients of a health-care e-mail complained that they had not asked to receive updates.

“We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual’s behalf,” spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night.

After a few such recipients appeared on Fox News, White House officials determined that advocacy groups on the right or left could have sent in the names without the person knowing it.

For instance, a group might have sent WhiteHouse.gov a comment from each person who had signed an online petition, and the White House would have captured the e-mail address.

FoxNews.com reported: “FOX News has offered the White House examples of what hundreds of people say were unsolicited e-mails.”