Three Evil Words: Part II

In response to last week’s piece contending that the phrase “for perpetual use” is evil when it comes to renting e-mail marketing lists, deliverability expert Jaren Angerbauer correctly pointed out there are three equally evil words marketers use all the time.

What are they? “Can Spam compliant.”

No, being Can Spam compliant isn’t evil. Claiming to be Can Spam compliant and pretending it means something is evil.

Saying, “I’m Can Spam compliant” is like saying: “I don’t punish my kid by sticking his head in the toilet and flushing.”

Both statements claim avoidance of activity the community has overwhelmingly deemed unacceptable. And both statements should elicit a response akin to: “Well, bully for you.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe the Can Spam Act is a well-crafted piece of legislation. And, yes, I realize I am one of its few defenders.

The Can Spam Act crushed a Byzantine mess of state regulations. It does not allow individuals to sue companies for violating it—for those in Utah’s state legislature who have trouble understanding simple Internet issues, this is a good thing.

The Can Spam Act has given law enforcement the tools to go after the bad guys and has been by far the most-leveraged law in the world in the fight against spam—which is ironic since it doesn’t outlaw spam.

Heck, Can Spam doesn’t even outlaw harvesting e-mail addresses off the Internet.

It also gives businesses much-needed wiggle room to be occasionally stupid.

Why should businesses have wiggle room to be stupid with e-mail? Because businesses are collections of humans, which means they are by definition dysfunctional. Groups of people do stupid things.

Businesses being stupid with e-mail shouldn’t be a criminal offense.

However, just because the law allows for stupidity doesn’t mean companies should purposely engage in it. There’s no law against verbally abusing customers, but no one who wants to stay in business would do so on a regular basis.

So why is it OK to abuse people’s inboxes? It’s not. That was rhetorical.

The Can Spam Act was designed to set some reasonably low standards of behavior for marketers while combating e-mail fraud, which it has done.

As a result, the marketer who claims to be Can Spam compliant is simply stating he is not a criminal. Well, bully for him.