Profesionais de relacións públicas: non está exento de CAN-SPAM

Depositphotos 21107405 m 2015

O acto CAN-SPAM leva fóra de 2003, pero é profesional das relacións públicas continúa enviando correos electrónicos masivos a diario para promocionar aos seus clientes. O acto CAN-SPAM é bastante claro, abarca "calquera mensaxe de correo electrónico cuxo obxectivo principal sexa a publicidade comercial ou a promoción dun produto ou servizo comercial."

Os profesionais de relacións públicas que distribúen comunicados de prensa aos blogueiros definitivamente cualifican O Pautas da FTC son claros para os correos electrónicos comerciais:

Indique aos destinatarios como optar por non recibir correos electrónicos futuros. A súa mensaxe debe incluír unha explicación clara e visible de como o destinatario pode optar por non recibir correos electrónicos no futuro. Elabora o aviso dun xeito doado para unha persoa común de recoñecer, ler e comprender.

Cada día recibo correos electrónicos de profesionais das relacións públicas e eles nin ten algún mecanismo de exclusión. Entón ... vou comezar a responsabilizalos e a presentar un Queixa FTC con cada correo electrónico que recibo que non ten un mecanismo de exclusión. Recomendaría a outros bloggers que o fagan tamén. Necesitamos responsabilizar a estes profesionais.

O meu consello aos profesionais de relacións públicas: obtén un provedor de servizos de correo electrónico e xestiona as túas listas e mensaxes directamente desde alí. Non me importa recibir correos electrónicos relevantes, pero gustaríame a oportunidade de optar por irrelevantes.

6 Comentarios

  1. 1

    There’s a separate question here, which is, “why aren’t those PR people crafting tailored pitches?”

    As a PR guy myself (never having approached you, though), I cringe at the idea of mass email blasts. The best practice continues to be to know your audience and to craft pitches that appeal to them, rather than to spray and pray.

    Your post leads to a follow-up question though – should we then put a “Please let me know if you’d rather not hear from me”-esque line at the end of every individually-addressed email?

  2. 2

    Hi Dave! At minimum, there should be a line in there. Whether or not an email is individually addressed doesn’t mean it’s not SPAM. There’s no ‘minimum’ list size for commercial-based email. 🙂

    As long as it’s not personal and it’s promotional in nature, I believe PR professionals should be compliant.

  3. 3

    I think you’ve got a great point. You would think that at some point PR professionals would learn that they need to market their clients based on strong relationships instead of push media… They should at least know that you shouldn’t piss off a blogger with an audience 😉

  4. 4
  5. 5

    Complying with CAN-SPAM should be an easy bar to get over, but there are some unique ramifications for the normal PR process if you enforce true compliance. Adding an unsubscribe link and your physical address should get you most of the way to where you want to be and everyone PR practioner should be doing this. However, technically under CAN-SPAM, once someone unsubscribes you can never send them an email again, unless they opt back in. You could consider different clients as “different lines of business” underthe Act as a reporter may kill for story on one client, but consider your release on another a waste. Also, as an agent (acting as a publisher) of the advertiser, you would need to share your opt outs with the advertiser (your client) so they do not send to that email address either- again problematic in the PR process. You could also argue that you are not selling the product in question to the reporter as the final consumer, so technically you are sending an informational or transactional email. And if someone publishes contact information for the purpose of receiving press releases, there is implied consent. The posters here are correct that it is all about targetting and most of all relevance to the reporter. Spam is in the eye of the beholder. Just some fun CAN-SPAM thoughts for the day!

  6. 6

    Todd- I know there have been over 100 Can-Spam prosecutions. The FTC can sue and also State AG’s, and ISPs like AOL can sue under Can-Spam. So companies like Microsoft have won considerable damages from criminal spammers and I’ve seen the FTC get anywhere from $55,000 to upwards of $10 million. Facebook has gotten the largest awards coming in around $80 million. The flipside is that the most of the awards are never collected. Also many investigations end in settlements with no press release, so the true number of enforcement actions would seem to be uncountable. I’m actually going to ask their public information office about this and see what I can dig up. Cheers!

¿Que pensas?

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir o spam. Aprende a procesar os teus datos de comentarios.