NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Email/Spam/Morality
ONLINE-ADS>> Email/Spam/Morality
Steve Podradchik (stevep_at_marketwave.com)
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:13:13 -0700
Hi,
There's been a lot of debate about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of
email. That's well and good; like most things, there's Black, White and
Grey. But, as anyone who has ever sent a piece of email to your REGISTERED
customers knows, there's always one wacko in the crowd who thinks he's been
spammed and threatens to do material damage to your company. These people
generally see themselves as protectors of the holy Internet and defenders
of the human gene pool. Generally these people can be reasoned with when
you explain that THEY signed-up to get this email and that you'd be happy
to immediately remove them from your list(s). But sometimes they go off
the deep-end and pledge to wage a tireless battle until you, the very
incarnation of the Devil himself, are vaporized off the planet. Luckily,
most of these people live in their own little world watching X-Files
re-runs 24 hours a day while bouncing off rubber walls. But sometimes this
statement is made by someone who c!
an actually carry out their threats.
So ... the question is, what have other people done when a soldier of
morality has found you guilty of crimes against The Net and actually has
the power to hurt you? In addition to the business implications, I'm
really struck by how two-faced their moral arguments are and would be
interested in opinions about this. Please see below...
Specifics:
Like most companies, Marketwave sends regular email to our existing
*registered* customers. We inform them about upgrades, tips and tricks,
special offers with our partners , etc. And, of course, we remove anyone
who asks to be removed from the list. Additionally, from time to time, our
partners negotiate special offers for Hit List for their customers/members
and use email to communicate to those members. Of course, these are
related offers.
Recently, one of our partners negotiated a 25% discount on Hit List
Pro/Enterprise for their members. They routinely send email, as do we, to
their members, telling them about special offers and such. In keeping,
they sent their members an appropriate email message about the discount
offer. Replys went to one of my employees.
Mark Welch, Esq., is apparently a member of this group.
As everyone who reads this list knows, Mark is not demure with his
opinions. He emailed the following message to variety of email addresses
at both companies:
"Why is <other company> sending spam for other people?
This is unsolicited commercial email.
Please explain, in 10 words or less, why I should
not initiate a boycott campaign against <other company>
and <other company's service> for this outrageous behavior."
Of course, I called and emailed him immediately (although I declined the
generous '10 words or less' offer ;). He promptly called me back and we
had a 5 minute discussion that clearly came down to a matter of opinion --
this wasn't spam sent to 100,000 people but a special offer sent to
*registered* users of a related service. (Mark even said that it wasn't
clearly a matter of law). Fine, agree to disagree.
However, what I found most disturbing was his statement "... I'd like to
put your company out of business.." and the absolutely clear statement that
he would do whatever he could to damage my company.
I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like malicious intent to me. If someone
says that they are intentionally going to damage your company, fully
understanding that they have no legal basis for statements that they are
making, doesn't that sound at least highly immoral if not illegal?
What's interesting to me about this isn't Mark's comments in and of
themselves, but the slipperiness of the moral high-ground that he claims to
stand on. In other words, isn't attempting to kill a company (his words)
when they've done you no harm and clearly broken no laws vastly more
morally unconscionable that sending a piece of email to someone who
essentially agreed (albeit not technically) to get it by joining a related
organization? I suppose that the phrase "the end justifies the means" will
come into play; Mark probably thinks he's saving the world from the horrors
of marketing but who gave him (or anyone) the right to become a self-styled
email vigilante? It's highly reminiscent of the abortion debates where one
side thinks that all actions are morally justifiable -- blowing up clinics,
murdering doctors, etc -- because of their perception of someone else's
choice.
This isn't actually meant to be a tirade against Mark, per se. He's
clearly welcome to his opinion. And I'm welcome to mine. What bothers me
is that there are a lot of Marks out there who are on a jihad to save the
world from things they don't like and will stop at nothing to do force
their opinions on others. Yet they claim moral superiority. This really
bothers me.
How do you fight such actions? Presumably other companies have been the
victims of smear campaigns. What have you done about them? Is there a
legal remedy or is this just one of those things you have to deal with when
doing business on the Net?
Thanks,
Steve Podradchik
CEO
Marketwave -- makers of Hit List, the world's most popular commercial
traffic and visitor analysis tool.
http://www.marketwave.com/ng
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
Money Minded debuts Oct. 1 on http://homearts.com, the #1 Lifestyle
Site for Women. It's straight talk on personal finance and investing.
-------
Get information on over 1700 interactive advertising opportunities,
search by content categories and preview sites using our new online
companion! ** http://www.srds.com/iashp.htm **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
