Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Again, i don't find this an extreme position. His position reflects a
> growing opt. in. philosophy that many people/companies are adopting. Thus,
> the default being, no mail unless you specifically opt in for it. In
> emergencies, or extraordinary circumstances, mail becomes acceptable.
>
Precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself.
In essence, you provide a simple mechanism for customers to opt-in; to hear
about new products and services, site developments, company news, etc. A
checkbox or radio button is the usual method. NOT a pre-selected checkbox or
radio button however, like on a good number of sites and 90% of snail-mail
blurbs, because that's still by definition *Opt-Out*.
If the customer has not opted-in, you should only contact them in situations
like system downtimes, billing enquiries, etc. If they wanted to hear about
new products, they would have checked the box. If they didn't, they don't,
and you leave them alone. And the more levels of opt-in you can provide, the
more pertinent information will get to the user.
It's a simple system to implement, that requires only a modicum of common
sense, and it keeps *everybody* happy. You stand a very good chance of repeat
and further business from the people who really wanted to hear about these
things, and you don't piss off the users who didn't, which also gives you a
chance of repeat and referred business, because they recognise you as a
responsible company.
The only possible loss is from morons who actually buy directly marketed
products and services, and to be honest, I don't want those people on my
systems anyway, because all they do is create havoc for everybody else. I can
afford to live without those people, and better still, I have a client base
that are quite likely to be just as responsible as myself - no porn and warez
merchants thank you. It's a win-win situation for me.
I can't understand why people have such a problem with it to be honest.
adam
