I mentioned on Twitter last week that I had received spam e-mail from Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin, sent to a throwaway e-mail address I had used a while back for a free gift card offer. This suggested that the company I gave the e-mail address to had placed it on a list to resell to e-mail marketers, and that the congressman's office had purchased that list.
Little did I know until later that day, that Rep. Langevin's systems administrator is an acquaintance of mine whom I met through work, and my tweet prompted a phone call from him to explain their side of the story. He had a valid point that resale of my e-mail address was probably a condition of the gift card offer, though I have more to say on that subject later. So I do retract my implication that Rep. Langevin is a "lowdown dirty spammer" (hey, I actually like the guy, which is part of why I was so disappointed in the situation). But, I feel there are some things that could have been done differently, which would have made me feel more positive about the whole thing.
The e-mail was a notice that recipients had been subscribed to a newsletter that would be published by the congressman's office. It contained a link one could click to unsubscribe. And that right there was their biggest mistake. We are constantly told not to click links in e-mails we did not ask to receive, and that most unsubscribe links in spam do nothing more than confirm your address as a valid one so that it can be sold to the next spammer. The first rule of ethical e-mail marketing (and even though they're not selling anything, politics is still marketing in my book) is opt-in, not opt-out. In fact, I just created an account with an e-mail marketing company which, before I import e-mail addresses, requires me to certify that the addresses all belong to people who specifically opted in to receive e-mail from me and that I did not purchase or borrow the list from anyone else. Had the e-mail simply been a one-time invitation to subscribe, rather than a notice of involuntary subscription requiring me to opt back out, it wouldn't have left such a sour taste in my mouth.
My friend asked how they would have gotten e-mail addresses of the congressman's constituents had they not purchased them. The most obvious answer to that question is to place a subscription form on his web site! Odds are that people who are interested in hearing from him will likely visit his site at some point. Other ways would be to take the money spent purchasing those e-mail addresses, and instead spend it on geo-targeted cost-per-click or cost-per-lead web advertising for the newsletter. Direct mail to constituents inviting them to subscribe, or even a one-time e-mailed invitation as I described above, would be much more ethical ways to build a subscriber list.
As far as whether I agreed to the sharing of my information at the time I signed up for the gift card offer, it was a long time ago and I honestly don't remember. But as a general rule I always opt out of such provisions if they are disclosed, and the very reason that I use unique e-mail addresses for such things is so that I can catch them failing to honor my opting out (and I do, all the time). My friend said that they actually had to be very careful about making sure that any e-mail addresses they purchased and used belonged to people who had agreed to having them shared, but honestly, would it be the first time that the seller of such a list lied about the addresses' opt-in status? Of course not. That's just another reason why, if you want to do your e-mailing ethically, you don't buy e-mail lists: because you really know nothing about the honesty of the people you're doing business with. One could also argue that my agreeing to having my e-mail address shared was contingent upon that company holding up their end of the bargain - i.e. delivering the gift card they promised - which they did not.
So, is Rep. Langevin a spammer? No. I understand the desire for an elected representative to communicate with the people he represents. But did his administration go about it the wrong way? I think they did. Perhaps they didn't know any better. Hopefully now, they do.
![[photo of me]](/glasses144.jpg)
![[album thumbnail]](/photos/oregon2009/thumbnails/albumthumb.jpg)
![[album thumbnail]](/photos/halloween2008/thumbnails/albumthumb.jpg)
