Unsubscribing
I have spent the past week unsubscribing to e-mail lists that I never subscribed to in the first place. I'm not talking about your run-of-the-mill spam for Russian babes and get-rich schemes. I'm talking public policy notices that I presume are sent to me because I'm with a media outfit. They range from opinion pieces from somewhere else to releases from businesses and governmental agencies that are legitimate but of no interest to us.
The experience is fascinating in its own bizarro way. I get three reactions:
1. I click the unsubscribe link and get sent to a page that doesn't exist.
2. I click the unsubscribe link and get unsubscribed. Or at least that's what the page tells me, but who knows?
3. I click the unsubscribe link and get asked why I want to unsubscribe. The page lists possible choices, although none lists my reason: Never wanted.
The worst is the e-mail with no information about unsubscribing.
Still, it is not as bad as the snail mail coming into the business. Everyone once in a while I will sort and deliver the mail coming into the newsroom. Don't be surprised. It's easy and takes almost no time because I toss 80 percent of it directly into the trash unopened. It's easy to tell from the envelope if it has value.
Just sayin.'
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
As one who has waged a War Against Spam for several years I'd like to point out a few things about the cost of spam.
Start with the cost of Internet service (ISP) and web hosting paid by the N&R each month: Are you aware that more than 50% of your Internet expenses are being consumed by spam?
Spam is the theft of Internet bandwidth-- something any online publisher should really be concerned with and yet most do nothing. If I were stealing half your paper and ink you'd do your best to stop me but if I steal 1/2 of your bandwidth you do nothing but blog about it? Why?
Spam is taking most of the profits out of online publishing and yet the publishing industry does nothing.
Spam has more than tripled since the passage of the Canned Spam Act.
Software will NEVER be able to put an end to spam because ending spam would put the anti-spam software companies out of business.
Then there's the time you pay employees to sift through spam, 15 minutes per employee per day? Twice that much? Do the math and see what you're paying for your employees to delete spam.
Next is the cost of your anti-spam software adding insult to injury because it allows much spam to leak through while blocking legit e-mail.
The vast majority of spam (over 90%) is on behalf of US and Multinational Corporations and the Canned Spam Act made most spam legal instead of the other way 'round.
If you and Mr Sauls really knew what spam was costing you then the N&R would want to sponsor the Death of Spam.
The cost of spam alone could end global poverty and homelessness and no one gives a damn. Why?
Have someone do the research-- I think you'll be shocked to know the truth.
Posted on July 26, 2008 2:53 PM
I spent most of the first half of 2008 unsubscribing from lists as well; if it says "safe unsubscribe," then feel confident using the link.
Any email with "send an email to unsubscribe" is suspect.
Having no unsubscribe info is against the law; I caution (mostly nonprofit) clients about it all the time. Their mass Outlook-generated emails with lots of addresses in the bcc: line put our servers at risk and getting off spam blocks take many hours of insipid online communication with ISPs. It takes a lot of time and effort to educate people about the CANSPAM act even though I'm pretty sure they're not going after nonprofits using Outlook, the $10K fine per email is pretty serious. US spam can be dealt with if resources are applied; foreign spam cannot (not by the US government).
Interesting reading: McAfee's experiment about spam.
Posted on July 27, 2008 2:50 PM