Is It Only Spam If The Other Guy Does It?
You work for a great org. What you do is important and meaningful. To you, it’s not just a job — it’s a mission. And it deserves funding and support from the public. I get that. But if your next logical step in that progression is to assume that I want to be on your email list, you’ve stepped over a line. It’s a line that does not invalidate your mission, or your devotion to it. But it doesn’t serve your mission, or your goal of garnering my support for it. Because I reserve my support for organizations that merit my attention, not ones that abuse it.
We live in a world where most of us wrestle with two common priority-setting challenges:
- Most of us are not Bill or Melinda Gates; we can only afford to financially support a handful of the organizations that we would like to support.
- Our inboxes are already overflowing.
I spend as little time as possible assessing unsolicited emails before I delete them or mark them as spam. It takes longer if the email is from a nonprofit, because I never assume that an NPO is deliberately spamming me, although it does, sadly, prove true on occasion. It’s time that would otherwise be spent doing a lot of things, many of them in service of the causes that I work for. Accordingly, the message that a nonprofit sends when they subscribe me to their list (without my approval) is: I am willing to set your priorities for you.
That’s not an appeal — it’s an edict.
It’s not an engagement — it’s invasive.
If their goal is to make it on my short list of organizations that I support, then the way to do that is by being the organization that pops up when I’m looking to add to my list. Those orgs have websites with solid descriptions of their work; metrics and testimonials to back it up; and good ratings with the organizations that assess non-profits. My friends and family advocate for them. They garner support by being good at what they do, as opposed to being good at getting in my face, or inbox, as the case might be.
I know that it seems like it might be less effective. And I know that we all want to be effective, because the missions we work for are critical. But I support organizations that address their missions with good strategies and tactics. Spam is not a strategy, and it’s an abhorrent tactic. And the fact that what a nonprofit is spamming is important doesn’t change the nature of it.
Michael Diviesti
C
Deborah Elizabeth Finn
Erin McMahon
katerpiddah
Nonprofit Curmudgeon
Peter Campbell
No Nonprofit Spam 
You’re completely right. I don’t mind signing up for nonprofit emailing lists, but even when they send emails, it shouldn’t be a daily reminder to donate. But you’re right when it automatically signs you up. I just think whenever your email goes into ANYTHING it is signed up to an email list. Although, it doesn’t make it right, and that’s why I can just go to the bottom of the email and opt out…
You do realize some of the email spams that signs you up into a suspicious newsletter has an opt out link that leads to more spam.
I’m not joking. Some spam emails use those links so that spammers could confirm that the email they are targetting – basically you – is still active. Thus, they send more spams. So possible way to deal with this is not opting out on suspicious newsletter and mailing lists in a flash, but if the emails are still coming from the same sender, feel free to try your luck.
On topic – you’re right about this, but that’s the way of marketing: taking chances by sending emails they didn’t realize are spams. We couldn’t do nothing more about it same as blatant spams containing helluva links, but you’re absolutely right about this.
So, you’re just screwed either way then? You can opt out, but then you’re signing into new spam? Ridiculous.
Actually, there’ve been studies showing that this isn’t as true as many of us expected.
When it’s a legitimate organization sending the mail, it’s almost unheard-of.
Diagram– a way around that is to hover your mouse over the opt-out link, look at the web address that it goes to (shown on the bottom of your screen). Then just open a new tab or window, type in that address, and opt-out. That way you opt-out without clicking on the link. Although it’s true that clicking the link doesn’t usually sign you up for more spam, I say better safe than sorry!
This is why I simply use the gmail “Mark as Spam” button. It automatically tries to unsubscribe you from the list (assuming the email follows certain standards so it isn’t caught in the spam filter) and, if that’s not possible, sends all further messages from that email (domain?) to the spam folder.
Well I forgot to mention that this usually occurs on those unlegitimate mailing lists trying to trick you. I did read this somewhere on an IT magazine, so I thought why not share, and do the same as David does.
Great post — I couldn’t agree more. I would love to see the stats on how effective spam actually is for fundraising or signing up new members…
Well, spam exists because you generally make more money than you spent to get it — in the same way that, if you throw 100,000 baskets, at least a few will land in the basket. But the metric isn’t “how much did the email campaign raise?” — it’s how much did you lose because of the potential donors that you alienated, and how deep is the support of the people that you did get. I don’t think there’s an easy way to get the stats, but I think it’s a no-brainer that a good nonprofit inspires more from it’s constituents than donations. For that, you have to build relationships, and relationships are built on courtesy and respect.
So well said, Peter. 🙂
As a student of Psychology, I can’t help but ponder the logistics of such a study.
Maybe a fake nonprofit organization (existing purely for this study) should spam one pool of participants for donations, then ask the same participants without spamming for donations. One would have to counterbalance the study on another pool of participants to increase validity. Finally have a control group where nothing is done to sway participants in either direction.
Researchers would monitor each participant for overall donations and percent of donations given to what charity.
There are several problems with starting an experiment like this, most of which are the ethical fouls most IRBs would call (including legality, taking money under false pretenses, etc.).
I would look forward to seeing research done on this since it would potentially provide evidence for/against CANSPAM regulations in the U.S.
About the stats.. I did research on spam a few years ago and I recall a company telling me that their spam filter kept out a massive amount of messages a day (forgive me but I don’t know the exact numbers anymore). Even so, their employees still receives a few SPAM messages daily.
You would be amazed how many (and I actually know a few) people read SPAM messages and “interact”. Leading to, ofcourse, more SPAM 🙂
I’m less bothered by spam emails (which I can delete) than with the constant evening phone calls from nonprofits begging me for money. I’ve written a script for such occasions: “Excuse me … while I am pleased to have donated to your organization in the past, I have $40,000 in student loan debts I can’t afford to pay back, and I already spend too much of my time dodging their calls. When I have money to donate, I will contact YOU.”
This is so true. My father has sworn never to donate to several nonprofits again because they will not stop calling him and asking for money. They ended up alienating someone who once thought highly enough about them that he made sizable donations.
“That’s not an appeal — it’s an edict.
It’s not an engagement — it’s invasive.”
Such powerful words and a spot-on message. Yet I wonder why it’s still a pervasive tactic? What possible benefits are organizations gaining from such invasive measures?
listen you made your plate, now your going to have to eat it. this is the way of the world now, and its the reason why we have spam filters, its that simple, you can still go through your spam box and sift through these emails when you feel you have the time. you are just watching this go on, and instead of taking proper action, i have to come across your negative aura while perusing through freshly pressed? shame on whoever deemed this to be front page worthy, it must be a really slow week. i dont care what you think about my comments, just straighten up and start taking care of your problems, instead of making a big deal about them.
Reasonable and honorable people sometimes disagree, so your dissenting comments are welcome here.
However, I don’t understand your argument. I gather that you wish to reprove and shame us, but I don’t understand the following points:
– In what sense are we to blame? (Is that what you mean by “you made your plate?” Perhaps I’ve misconstrued.)
– In what sense are we failing to take proper action? (I’m not sure how you are monitoring the individual actions of the bloggers on this site.)
I will welcome any clarification you care to offer.
It is definitely invasive if it’s a sales pitch and you did not subscribe on your own initiative.
Absolutely right on! If you have decided to sign up for a mailing list- fair dues, but smapping for money is a definite turn off. Slightly off tpoin but just as off-putting are the charity muggers on the streets with their buckets and lists who want you to hand over your bank account details for direct debits…. if i wan to donate (and I do donate to animal charities) I will seek out the information myself. We all have google. We can all get involved if we wish to do so.
“And the fact that what a nonprofit is spamming is important doesn’t change the nature of it.” Totally agree! And personally, I think non-profits should leverage social media much more than they do: because so many people are emotionally invested in good causes and because conversations about our communities are likely to interest us, it should be easier to get shared and commented about, and ultimately to get donations and volunteer efforts.
I love your last three sentences: concise and conclusive.
what worries me is are you going to reply to peoples’ comments?
If every e-mail would cost something, even if only a fraction of a cent, spammers would think more than twice.
As long as the (marginal) costs of sending e-mails are zero, there is no way to stop this behaviour.
Reading through the comments (and, wow, Deborah — for a two day old blog, we seem to be pretty well established!), I’d point out that there’s spam and there’s nonprofit spam, and I make a real distinction. Adams55 is right that spam is a fact of life that won’t go away soon, and I wouldn’t write a post like this to a viagra or cheap mortgage spammer. I think we’re motivated here as much, or more, by concern for the NPos that spam as we are annoyance. It’s one thing when your neighbor wears their pants hanging below the waist — it’s another when it’s your brother, you know?
NO MORE SPAM!! My inbox is overflowing with emails.
im sorry for not better clarifying my point on how you are to blame for your grief. now dont get me wrong, you are not solely to blame, but you did give your email address out, they did not just type in a random address and send you mail on a daily basis on a lucky guess of random characters. so with that being said, mark said unwanted emails as spam, you can still read them in your spam folder, you know, when it wont be frivolously wasting your valuable email checking time. i dont mean to come off as a complete dick, but i suppose i have been, and for that i apologize, ive been dealing with spam mail for about 15 years now, and i would have to be a real piece of work if i let it ruin my day to such an extent. dont let this matter ruin your day, there is indeed a resolution. again, sorry for being an ass.
Thank you, Adams55, for your helpful clarification!
I suppose that I should offer a clarification in turn.
The authors of this site are all perfectly capable of hitting the “spam” button. We are not exclusively concerned about our own in-boxes.
We (the authors here) are all technology professional who work with or for nonprofit organizations. We believe that spam is a bad idea, even in a good cause, and we don’t want to be complicit in bad behavior. (With the jobs we do, this is a very real possibility.) We want to make the case that a nonprofit that sends unsolicited bulk email is doing a disservice not just to the recipients of the messages but to the nonprofit’s cause.
Therefore, we are doing our best to raise awareness among our nonprofit colleagues that sending spam is discourteous, unethical, illegal, and ineffective.
The problem with “it’s your fault because you gave your email address out” is that it equates to “it’s your fault your house was robbed because you have a house”. Spam is a problem; the victims do have to jump through incredible hoops to minimize it. No matter how many you jump through, the only way to truly avoid it is to not use email, and that’s a ridiculous extreme. But, adams55, as we keep pointing out, this blog is not about spam in general, and this post was not intended for your run of the mill spammers, who I don’t imagine would ever listen to any arguments I might make as to why they shouldn’t be the blight on society that they are. This post is intended for over-enthusiastic, well-meaning associates of mine who might, in their enthusiasm for their causes, become spammers.
A simple solution I have found useful involves having two email accounts. The one I use for commercial or public dealings gets its contents saved or trashed daily, and spammers are welcome to drop in. The other account, for personal communications, has a short address list. It gets a few random spams, but not much.
I’ve been spammed repeatedly by organizations who I never gave my email address to – for any purpose at all. I don’t imagine too many nonprofits are into scraping emails, but I do think there are many that buy lists, perhaps never suspecting that they are getting scraped emails.
Plus, even when I do give my email address, I am careful to do so only when I have been provided a clear understanding of what my email address will be used for. Just because I give you permission to email me, say, a confirmation of a volunteer opportunity that I’ve signed up for doesn’t mean I want your newsletter.
Andreas is correct. The idea that sending an email should be free and not require a “stamp” is one of the most pernicious ideas ever to infect humanity. This comment is worth what you paid for it.
Excellent blog post, btw.
Email is not free, of course. The server hosting your email account is sponsored by advertisers, both commercial and nonprofit. In other words, by the much-hated spammers. As happened with cable TV, it seems likely users will end up enduring ads connected with email accounts they pay monthly fees for.
A valid point and a well-made case. You feel strongly enough about it to have a whole blog around the topic – interesting!
great post!!! congrats on being fp’ed!!!!!!!
“We live in a world where most of us wrestle with two common priority-setting challenges”
Exactly finding the next meal and keeping the lights on.
Well, good, true point. The funny thing about finding your post frontpaged on WordPress.com is that your anticipated audience broadens quite remarkably. When I wrote “we”, I pretty much expected that this post would be read by no more than 25 peers of mine in the nonprofit tech community. I’m not complaining about the exposure — it’s great — but, as you make clear, context and perspective are important factors. 🙂
I worked for a non-profit, and can see just what you’re saying. It reminds me of the saying, “one man’s treasure is another man’s trash.”
I agree so completely with you on this (and I’ve posted about it several times at my own site). What the charities and causes seem to forget is that respect for boundaries is a qualifier upon the worthiness of a cause I will contribute to, for me and for many others. Uninvited is uninvited. If I come to you and ask for help or info, the door is open – but ONLY for that transaction, not to a permanent “fake friendship” in perpetuity.
As an Identity Theft Risk Manager, I can tell you that if you send emails no matter who or what it is for, they ALL need to have an opt-out available on them, either by replying with OPT-OUT in subject line, or via a link to click.
This is law set by the FTC, for fare and protected consumer act.
If you have (I did it) selected to recieve something from a website or organization, and you decide later you no longer want it, you need to be able to select the option to discontinue their emails, and not recieve more spam, if you have opted out at least 3 times, I always give 3 strikes, you then can send the “spam” they send you to the FTC as being a Spammer.
I seem to have at least 1-2 spam emails a day which are easy to find because they are like clickmehereforagoodtime@me.com or something like that. I used to get none, but now I tend to get at least some spam emails a day. And, I seem to get signed up for newsletters that I don’t even know what they’re talking about. I can’t stand spam, but it seems to keep coming no matter how many times I mark it ‘spam.’
Is spam effective?
One imagines so; otherwise those involved would have given up by now – although calculating possible ‘conversion rates’, i.e. from spam into a sale of some sort, nonetheless remains something of a mystery.
What I’ve always found interesting is that here in the UK it is not possible to obtain Patent protection for spam….however, there is a US Patent relating to spam and I believe it was successfully filed as, “…a method for conducting business”.
Go figure!
If you find email bad try walking down a street full of Chuggers smiling and waving their arms at you.
I think I get more in the regular mail than my email. Such a waste of paper. I’m not sure why I don’t get spammed in my email with this stuff. Maybe because it’s gmail and I never look at the spam mail.
well that certainly puts a different spin on it, my apologies completely.
We never dreamed that anyone outside our professional circle would read our blog, and were taken by surprise when WordPress featured it.
🙂
Good post! I couldn’t agree more. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that companies and non-profits that have my email address are selling them to lists for profit. I get emails from new non-profits every day asking me for contributions! It is making me hesitant to give out my email or even want to make purchases online that require my email. I agree with Peter Campbell’s above comment when he said, “‘it’s your fault because you gave your email address out” that it equates to “it’s your fault your house was robbed because you have a house”. I liked that analogy.
They garner support by being good at what they do, as opposed to being good at getting in my face, or inbox, as the case might be.
Loved this. It’s hard with a religious NPO, though. It’s like you’re unsubscribing from God.
Congratulations on being FP!!
Yeah, it pulls at heart-strings when seeming religious folks solicit. Oh well…..
Congrats on being FP! K
It is truly weird how many people/organisations have a blind spot for when they, themselves, spam.
I recall in particular an incident when I went to college: One of the students’ organisations mailed the entire school with some message that would interest possibly one-in-a-hundred. When I complained that they were engaging in spamming, that they should leave me out of their mailing lists, and that there were local news groups (this was at a time when news groups were still a significant part of the Internet) far better suited for their purposes, I received a very rude reply that denied any spamming—and which claimed that due to the low penetration of news groups and the low proportion of people interested, email was the only option for them to reach their goals. Paraphrased to emphasize the between-the-lines message: We benefit more from sending the email than the users from receiving it and we justify mailing everyone instead using proper channels by their being too many opt-outs from these channels—spam if I ever saw it.
I would suggest a basic rule of thumb: If a message is unsolicited, it is only acceptable when written explicitly for the one receiver. (This rule has a reduced applicability where e.g. friends, or colleagues are concerned, but will work well in a “sales and marketing” context.)
It’s a common thing, especially with non-profits: the people sending the mail (or making the phone call, or whatever) believe so strongly in their cause that they cannot imagine a reasonable person disagreeing. And when someone agrees with the cause but disagrees with the method of promoting the cause, there’s often total cognitive dissonance.
So, yes, we can report spam and eventually their mail will get blocked, but that doesn’t serve to educate the sender. They can’t understand why the mail was blocked; they’re more likely to cry “censorship!” than take the time to consider that maybe some of the recipients didn’t want it.
This will be a tough education process, and I’m very glad to see this blog take it on.
I think that’s an important point, J.D. On another list (discussing this blog), someone suggested putting NPO’s that spam on the Spamhaus lists, that many ISPs subscribe to. I think that’s a last resort — education is much more effective and humane a response. I know that it’s a lot of what motivated Deborah to start this blog.
True. I keep open new email, then get overflow, dump it, and then open a new email…
Great post. Sometimes I think spam isn’t effective. It irritates many beyond belief. Do we really need to receive a daily reminder? I don’t think so.
I love this post. You word everything brilliantly and concisely. I don’t see what organization in their right mind would want to send spam emails. They are not getting their point across at all. It not quantity its quality in this situation. Big Companies need to lay back and think of a Monthly email at least. Maybe even having the first paragraph explaining the company and the opt-out button right up top. This would save everyone time by not having to skim the email looking for the opt-out and you would also know what the company is all about. I understand where you trying to get with your post but some companies can not get their name out without sending emails to everyone. But then again the companies are more then able to spread their name on Google rather then my email. Only solution is the two email trick. One private and one public (doesn’t prevent from all spam but makes it easier to filter).
You’ve independently arrived at the invalidity of the “nonprofit” excuse for spam. See here for the rest:
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/that-which-we-dont.html
I loved the photo and title. I’m glad you were freshly pressed cause people need to read the message you send.
I guess it’s better an email than a phone call. I always hate when I answer the phone (even though I have caller I.D. so I have no excuse) and it’s a soliciting phone call for money and I’m trying politely to say no. Esp. the police/fire dept one. Talk about guilt. At least with an email you can just hit delete. The phone call doesn’t stop till you answer it.
If a mentally ill person hears voices, does that qualify as spam?
This raises an interesting point that all for-profit and non-profit businesses must deal with: When does email become spam? Is it once a week, twice a week, twice a month, etc.? Admittedly, people are far more tolerant of emails they receive from non-profits than from for-profit businesses, but that tolerance only goes so far. My personal belief is that if you provide quality on a regular basis – and it can be more frequent for non-profits, that you will get a far better ROI in response to your emails and any other campaigns your non-profit runs.
It’s not just about the quality or the quantity of email, although those are formidable variables. It’s also about limiting your bulk email to those who have explicitly given you permission to send it to them. An opt-out basis isn’t good enough; the recipients have to opt-in before you start sending them bulk email.