Lawbreaking E-mail was One-Time Mistake: 1-800-PetMeds

A letter arrived via FedEx last week from 1-800-PetMeds’ corporate lawyer Alison Berges.

The letter was in response to an article that appeared here recently criticizing the marketer for sending an unsolicited e-mail with no physical postal information or opt-out mechanism, a violation of the Can Spam Act.

“Please be assured that the failure to include these items in this particular e-mail was inadvertent and certainly not intentional,” the letter said. “We note that since the order you placed with us in January 2009 we have sent you e-mails and we’re sure that if you were to review them, you would see that all of those prior e-mails did indeed have the unsubscribe function and our physical address.”

I checked and, indeed, other e-mails 1-800-PetMeds sent me included the company’s address and an unsubscribe function. So apparently, the law-breaking e-mail was a one-time mistake.

Fair enough.

Berges’s letter then apologized for the unsolicited messages I received and said my address had been unsubscribed from 1-800-PetMeds’ file.

Also fair enough. But the thing is, I don’t need an apology. I personally do not care about the occasional spam that hits my inbox. I have never been remotely bothered by it. It has never reached nuisance levels in the three e-mail boxes I maintain. I just hit “delete.”

In fact, I like it when well-known companies spam me. It gives me an opportunity to write about it and explain why it’s not a good idea.

When I point out companies by name that are engaging in stupid e-mail marketing practices, I am not complaining about the effect it has on me. It has no discernable effect on me.

Moreover, when I criticize a company for adding customers to its e-mail file without permission, I am not making a value judgment. I am simply pointing out that it’s not wise.

If it weren’t for the “report spam” button, I might even be arguing that marketers certainly should be able to contact their customers with e-mail whether or not they have given explicit permission.

But the fact is the “report spam” button exists. It is the No. 1 gauge inbox providers use to determine whether or not incoming e-mail is spam. If enough people hit it, the mailer will experience delivery problems.

Mailing people without permission is a sure way to draw complaints. Big-name spammers don’t hurt me. In fact, they make my job easier. They only hurt themselves.