Note: This post was originally published on The Email Zoo on August 17, 2009.
—–
The White House just sent me spam.
As a guy in the email industry, I don't toss the S-word around lightly. However, that was my immediate reaction when an email from "David Axelrod, The White House" landed in my inbox last week.
Now, let me be clear. From a CAN-SPAM perspective, this was not spam. It was unsolicited, but not illegal. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 does not require mailers to prove opt-in; instead they must provide the ability to opt-out. Also, political emails are exempt (<–This may be debatable).
That being said, CAN-SPAM is the legal framework. It does not comment on "best practices" or even more basic, "doing what is right." Some people who received this email from "David Axelrod, The White House" clearly were not happy. I don't know the background on Major Garrett, but he seemed less then happy (or maybe he was just stirring the political pot). As Fox News says, "…you decide."
Besides the fact that this clip is entertaining – no matter what side of the aisle you are on – it brings up some interesting questions:
- Did the White House rent a list or used forwarded email addresses?
- **How – if at all – will they address this issue? Send an apology email? Issue a formal press release? Will Obama talk about it?
- Are the email rules different for the government?
- Does anyone care that they are not following sound email marketing best practices (see comments below)?
**Since this report/video was released last week, the White House has responded: "White House will change e-mail rules"
A quick critique of why this email failed from a design perspective:
1. From Name:. I don't know who "David Axelrod, The White House" is. I had to google him. Okay, now I "remember" – he's the Senior Advisor to President Obama. Who would take the time to look that up? Also, all I can see in my gmail inbox is "David Axelrod, The…" Verdict? Delete/Spam.
2. Subject Line: "Something worth forwarding" looks, smells, and tastes of spam. It might as well have said, "Send $1,000,000 to the Central Bank of Nigeria." Verdict? Delete/Spam.
3. Length/Copy: Lots of text, lots of scrolling. No call to action above the fold. Nothing to entice me to read beyond my initial scan. Verdict? Delete/Spam.
4. "Please don't reply": I wrote about this back in my Bronto days: http://blog.bronto.com/2008/11/21/donotreadthispost/. Blasting out an email to me and then telling me I can't reply is not engagement. Verdict? Delete/Spam.
—-
Did you receive the same email in your inbox last week? Did you have similar thoughts? Did you read it or delete it? Did you mark it as spam or junk? Did you have the same reaction to the content as I did? How about the video clip?
DJ Waldow
Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
Last 5 posts by DJ Waldow
- Chase Online Sets Proper Expectations - December 1st, 2009
- This is NOT spam - August 4th, 2009
- Risk & Reward - Another Take on Mailchimp Study - December 9th, 2008
- Email List Rental = Car Rental - July 16th, 2008
I think that Gibbs' response was right. Major Garret is assuming that someone received an email that they didn't sign up for from the Whitehouse because he got an email telling him so. That's not sufficient evidence that the White House is using rented lists (which isn't illegal by the way.)
……
Gibbs stated that he couldn't verify if someone was on the White House list or not without checking the email address against the list. There is a chance that the people who contacted Major Garret did sign up. Perhaps it was forwarded to them from someone else. Major Garret is assuming the veracity of a claim he received in email. I'm sure he's received emails from people who were certain that the President wasn't born in the United States as well. Doesn't make it true.
……
There is also the chance that someone else signed someone up to a list if they don't use double opt-in subscription. If that's the case, they should unsubscribe. I checked the White House message and they do have an unsubscribe link in their messages.
…….
It's far to common these days for our news reporters to say, as Major Garrett did in the follow up interview, that "I'm not saying it's so, I'm just asking the question."
……
It's like me saying, "I'm not saying that Major Garrett had to cheat to get through school, I'm just asking if he did."
I think that Gibbs' response was right. Major Garret is assuming that someone received an email that they didn't sign up for from the Whitehouse because he got an email telling him so. That's not sufficient evidence that the White House is using rented lists (which isn't illegal by the way.)
……
Gibbs stated that he couldn't verify if someone was on the White House list or not without checking the email address against the list. There is a chance that the people who contacted Major Garret did sign up. Perhaps it was forwarded to them from someone else. Major Garret is assuming the veracity of a claim he received in email. I'm sure he's received emails from people who were certain that the President wasn't born in the United States as well. Doesn't make it true.
……
There is also the chance that someone else signed someone up to a list if they don't use double opt-in subscription. If that's the case, they should unsubscribe. I checked the White House message and they do have an unsubscribe link in their messages.
…….
It's far to common these days for our news reporters to say, as Major Garrett did in the follow up interview, that "I'm not saying it's so, I'm just asking the question."
……
It's like me saying, "I'm not saying that Major Garrett had to cheat to get through school, I'm just asking if he did."
I wouldn't calculate this to be completely "spam," but I would motion that this definitely pushes the barrier on people's expectations. As a Barack Obama supporter during his campaign, I opted in for his marketing. After he was elected, the branding quickly changed to the White House and the copy didn't change much — the same biased statements.
I find the White House email list ought to be clear calls to action and offer neutral, unbiased, copy. It's inappropriate for the White House to make assumptive expectations that everyone on their list is in support of their agenda — Public Option Healthcare, for example.
Their response indicates they plan to further segment their list and allow better confirmation.
~Joe
I'm with you DJ – the "SpamGate" incident this summer shows the email marketing department at the White House may be in need of some consulting! It's a little surprising (or maybe a better word would be *disappointing*) given the prowess that the Obama team showed in utilizing all forms of interactive media, including email during the campaign.
The PR response from the WH post- the Gibbs-Barrett exchange was appropriate (i.e., that they are going to implement stronger measures to ensure that only those who truly want to be signed up receive emails). With that said, I just checked their site, and there doesn't seem to be much complexity (any complexity at all actually) in signing up for their list – all you need to do is provide an email address and zip code in a form prominently listed at the top of the page and click submit.
I personally hate "captcha" puzzles; but in some cases – i.e., an org that has massive exposure like the WH — they should be employed along with other measures to control (to the extent possible) that people don't wind up on their databases who don't want to be.
@Tom: I'm not suggesting Major Garrett's response was appropriate. I'm just saying that it's a topic worthy of discussion. Having no answer or fumbling is not an acceptable reply. If I were that guy, I would have been honest – "I'm not sure about the emails that the White House sends out, but I'll check and get back to you." Right? Just be direct. End of discussion. He was not qualified to answer that question.
—-
@Joe: All about expectations, right?
—-
@Jordan: Are you really surprised/disappointed? I mean most of the "big guys" are not great at email marketing. That just isn't what they do. The channel is very misunderstood. It's our job to help educate. That's my take at least.
—
Thanks all for your comments. Keep 'em coming.
—-
DJ Waldow
Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
@djwaldow
I have to disagree with your post here DJ, but not for the detailed points you made, all of which were entirely valid.
-
I don't think the email from The White House was spam, simply because it came from The White House. For me this isn't about politics as much as it's about communicating with the masses.
-
OK, this email discusses important legislation that's going to impact everyone's life and pocketbook if passed. And (full disclosure) I happen to agree with the administration's position.
-
The point, for my part, is that since this is from The White House, from the President's office, it's a communication we don't get to opt-out of. The White House has a right to contact us in any way it likes for any reason it likes, regardless of the administration serving.
-
In fact, I extend that point to cover any representative in our direct line of representation. I don't think former Governor Palin of Alaska should send me a note about panels of insurance eating dead people or whatever, but as a tax payer in N.C. I'm OK if Governor Perdue decides to drop a few lines to keep me informed about her reasons for raising my taxes while cutting back services. She's my Governor. She gets to.
-
Again, I agree on the fine points. I just don't think they apply in this case.
-
As always IMHO,
Sid.