Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Hall of Shame: Classmates.com

Monday, November 17th, 2008

“Your former classmates are trying to contact you! Upgrade now to see their messages!” You’ve received Classmates.com spam and endured their irritating yearbook ads.

While most consider the “classmates are trying to contact you” message a marketing trick, Anthony Michaels of San Diego, CA took Classmates.com at their word and paid $15 for an upgrade only to discover that—surprise!—none of his former classmates were trying to reach him.

Michaels realized he probably wasn’t alone and hired an attorney to pursue a class action lawsuit. The suit alleges intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and violation of California business and professions code.

Here’s the summons and complaint:

View the classmates.com summons and complaint

Classmates.com’s reputation was already poor: The Better Business Bureau and consumeraffairs.org have been logging consumer complaints against the company for years.

Classmates is innocent until proven guilty, but in the court of public opinion no trial is needed. Their ubiquitous advertising and questionable email marketing tactics have made them an easy target—and have earned them a place in the Responsible Marketing Hall of Shame.

So, what do you think if Classmates.com?

Ever been duped by them?

Can they redeem themselves?

Scroll down to share your thoughts.

. . .

A little irony: While researching this topic, countless sites that featured this story had advertising on them from—you guessed it—Classmates.com. Here’s one:

classmates.com ad featured next to story about lawsuit against classmates.com+enlarge

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Source (including summons and complaint): Wired.com

Hall of Shame: Misleading mortgage marketers

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

Every homeowner gets them: Misleading letters from mortgage lenders informing you that you are eligible for a lower payment.

Here’s one I received a few months ago from Eagle Nationwide Mortgage:

Eagle Nationwide Mortgage - misleading letter

The letter above follows the typical template:

  • Your mortgage lender’s name is at the top, along with your “account number”
  • Contains the word “URGENT” and “ACT IMMEDIATELY”
  • It includes a notification that after reviewing your file, it’s been determined that you can save money if you contact them now
  • Sounds like a great deal, doesn’t it?

    Slow down.

    It’s not from your mortgage lender. It’s from their competitor that has acquired your mortgage information and is using it to lure you into moving your mortgage to them.

    Because they’ve used your lender’s name and information regarding your loan, you’ll open the letter and read it. Unless you read the fine print at the bottom or on the back of the page, you wouldn’t know it’s not your lender.

    I’ve received countless solicitations that have incorporated my current loan balance and payment, then showed how much the payment would be if I accepted their offer. For me, this crosses the line. I don’t want this information being used by marketers.

    And I especially don’t want it being used by lenders that use questionable marketing tactics. If they’ll do this, what else will they do with my personal data?

    This is clearly deceptive marketing, and for that, misleading mortgage marketers deserve a place in the Responsible Marketing Hall of Shame.

    So, have you received one of these solicitations? What’s your story?

    Comment below to share.

    Subscribe to this feed.

    When do unsolicited messages become spam?

    Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

    When do unsolicited messages become spam?

    Yesterday, several members of my Outsource Marketing team received a solicitation via an email form that none of us wanted.

    I personally responded with a simple email:

    Don’t SPAM us with your … ‘opportunities’ anymore. Especially via our new business inquiries form.

    Thank you.

    This set off a nuclear reaction of emails: A curt message from the rep telling me “Obviously you cannot see a good ‘opportunity’ when it walks right up to you” which—as you might expect—resulted in a pretty direct response to him—and his boss.

    His boss didn’t respond the way I expected. He was pissed I called them spammers, and said as much.

    I won’t get into the details, but after the smoke cleared, it became apparent that their aggression came from the fact that they hate spammers as much as we do—and I had the audacity to call them one when they believed they clearly weren’t.

    We obviously had a big difference of opinion:

    To me, this was spam because:

  • I didn’t want it.
  • I didn’t like getting it.
  • I didn’t opt-in to receive it.
  • I wanted to make sure I was perfectly clear I didn’t want to receive another message from them again.
  • To them, it wasn’t spam because:

  • Their message was targeted
  • They believed it was relevant
  • They didn’t realize the form went to several people
  • This brings up a Responsible Marketing question:

    When do unsolicited messages become spam?

    From Wikipedia:

    E-mail spam, also known as “bulk e-mail” or “junk e-mail,” is a subset of spam that involves nearly identical messages sent to numerous recipients by e-mail.

    A common synonym for spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Definitions of spam usually include the aspects that email is unsolicited and sent in bulk.

    “UCE” refers specifically to “unsolicited commercial e-mail.”

    By that definition, the message I received was unwelcome, but it wasn’t spam.

    However, most marketers that subscribe to the tenets of Permission Marketing agree that if a message isn’t anticipated, personal and relevant, it’s spam.

    The message was targeted, and for all the sender knew, it was relevant. But since it was sent to generic new business inquiries mailbox, it wasn’t anticipated or personalized.

    So based on the tenets of Permission Marketing, it was spam.

    Still, marketing is about interruption and getting someone’s attention. Most messages are unsolicited.

    If we applied the same standard to advertising, how would it fare?

  • It’s not anticipated (we’re seldom there for the ads)
  • It’s not personalized
  • It’s only relevant if the advertiser chose the media well
  • In the midst of our scorched earth email exchange, I said:

    Spam is in the eye of the recipient, not the sender.

    But if their message was simply unsolicited, did I overreact?

    Why was my response so visceral?

    And at what point should an unsolicited message be classified as spam?

    I’d love to see some heated discussion this.

    Comment below to weigh in.

    Subscribe to this feed.