NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Mark Welch surrenders; quits all "consumer advocacy"
ONLINE-ADS>> Mark Welch surrenders; quits all "consumer advocacy"
Mark J. Welch, Esq. (markwelch_at_ca-probate.com)
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:50:19 -0700
Over the past two years, I have spoken out in the
role of a "consumer advocate," particularly
regarding internet advertising. Today, I have
decided to abandon that role. (I apologize for the
length of this message, but I wanted to share my
thought process as I begin to purge my web site.)
The "triggering event" is an exchange regarding
a piece of unsolicited commercial email I received
several days ago. I received three copies of the
same message, promoting a website-statistics-and-
analysis program. The message was sent by an
"advertising directory" company which decided
unilaterally to send another company's commercial
message, and I felt this was an abuse. When both
companies refused to apologize or cease the
practice of sending unsolicited commercial email,
I called for a boycott of the companies. (A
consumer boycott is the only practical, legal,
and effective tool that consumers have to respond
to this kind of abuse.)
In response to my complaint and call for a
boycott, one of the companies posted a message
characterizing me as a "wacko" and falsely
stating that I had registered and asked to
receive such mailings, and then complained
irrationally and threatened illegal retribution.
I replied with a correction of the false and
defamatory comments, but they "stuck" anyway.
In the past 48 hours, I have received more than
a dozen email messages, of which the following
is typical:
> I have just read two postings from Mark Welch
> Esq. and [X] and am really concerned why Mark
> has taken the position of boycotting X's company
> and in general causing X's company problems. I
> think that maybe Mark "doesn't get it" since it
> appears clear that he has in the past signed up
> to recieve material from X's company. I think
> that X has gone the extra mile to be accomodating
> to Mark. I also have to agree that "Who made
> you (Mark) the "Spam Avenger". I know that
> Mark is just acting like a lawyer and if he sees
> that he can get notoriety and a following that
> it's ok to use vigilante tactics on people. Let's
> face it Mark, you are in essence spamming
> everyone on the list with your SIG also remember
> Mark there is a DELETE key and X agreed to take
> you off the list so that you will not receive
> any more posts. In the past I have found many
> articles from Mark informative and valuable.
> I now see that there also lurks a person in
> Mark who can be hurtful to others when they have
> not hurt him. I think Mark needs to go back to
> school and get some better people skills.
> Remember Mark, Judge Not, Lest you be Judged.
This message was the proverbial "straw that
broke the camel's back." Of course, I take
issue with the facts: I never "signed up to
receive material" from the company, I never
suggested any vigilante tactics, and I certainly
feel that I am substantially hurt by the time I
spend dealing with 20 to 30 unsolicited
commercial email messages every day (most
of them forged or disguised so I cannot weed
them out easily).
Perhaps more surprising was the comment that
I was "acting like a lawyer" by speaking out
in this situation -- and that this is a bad
thing. I thought I was speaking out in the
role of a consumer advocate who believes that
consumers should not be subjected to involuntary
flooding by unwanted "postage due" marketing
materials. I certainly believe very strongly
that I should not be vulnerable to each vendor's
whim in deciding whether I "wanted" to receive
their mailings, especially since hundreds of
vendors have already abused this concept by
assuming that if I am "in business" then any
business mailing is OK.
I am impacted by two things today. First, this
particular marketer's false and defamatory reply
to my complaint (falsely stating that I asked
to receive these materials, and falsely stating
that I threatened illegal retaliation) has "stuck"
and there is nothing I can do to regain or undo
the damage to my reputation (and no, there
would be no benefit from suing him). Second,
the reaction has been almost universally negative:
everyone is basically telling me to shut up and just
hit the delete key when I get junk email.
Of course, "junk email" is NOT the only "internet
advertising" subject in which I speak out in the
role of a consumer advocate. Over the past 18
months, I have also maintained a web page about
"web site banner advertising" in which I list and
comment on many companies that operate
advertising networks or banner exchange services,
and ad brokers and representatives. My page
contains some very specific factual comments
and warnings, and as a result I also am flooded
with complaints by vendors who are criticized
on my page.
The most common complaint is, as the above
fellow wrote, "who appointed you?" The last
few month's emails can best be summed up by
the email I received yesterday from Andy Bourland
of ClickZ:
[ MODERATOR'S NOTE: The following passage was excerpted
from a private email message. At the request of the
original message's author, it has been removed. ]
Andy is right about one thing: it's time for me to decide
between my law practice and my "internet consumer
advocacy." And I've made that decision today: my law
practice wins.
Nobody appointed me. I thought I was providing a useful
public service by devoting a portion of my time to speaking
out and advocating for the interests of web "consumers"
(including web publishers). This work has made a very large
"dent" in my law practice -- indeed, to the point of reducing
my law-office income by nearly 50% this past year. Revenue
from web advertising has not come close to replacing that, and
contrary to Andy's assertion, I do NOT want to launch an ad
network. (But quite honestly, if someone wants to offer me
a job, I'd discuss it -- as recently as yesterday, I have just
said "no" to consulting offers, but now I'll consider them,
since I no longer need to worry that it will create an
appearance of affecting my former consumer advocacy
activity.)
So doing this costs me money, and I get mostly complaints
for doing it.
I surrender. I will no longer act as a "consumer advocate"
in any way, regarding any issues related to internet advertising.
That means I'll stop complaining about unsolicited commercial
email, and I will remove my web pages regarding UCE and
banner advertising, as well as other consumer advocacy pages
at my web site. It's just not worth it.
I certainly never intended that my consumer advocacy role
end up damaging my law practice, either by distracting me
from my legal work or (much more important to me) by
damaging my reputation. One of the reasons I became
an attorney was so that I could speak out for the little guy,
which I think is a good thing. It doesn't pay, and it's
draining on my time, but I figured that if I could speak
out and help some people, it was worth it.
Today, I decided it's not.
I quit.
-- Mark J. Welch, Esq. (510) 462-8483 http://www.ca-probate.com/
-- This message is NOT legal advice, and is NOT confidential.
-- Web Site Banner Ads and Web Counters: http://www.markwelch.com/
-- Small Office / Home Office Consumer: http://www.sohoconsumer.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
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 **
-------
Money Minded debuts Oct. 1 on http://homearts.com, the #1 Lifestyle
Site for Women. It's straight talk on personal finance and investing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
