Newsletter = Spam?

[lakibuk]

I recently started a newsletter and i've got all purchasers of my game on the list. Do you consider this spam? I know some of you send newsletters to customers and some don't.

[BantamCityGames]

I would consider it spam, unless the customer was clearly notified that this would happen and had the option to opt out.

With that being said, I emailed an update to all previous customers of ToW without notice.

[cliffski]

its spam.
just because i buy something from you doiesnt mean i ever want to hear from you again.
I dont even bother with newsletters anymore. 99% of email appears to be spam, do i really think its worth getting put on spam blocklists for the 0.01% of people who will read the newsletter?
I also have a problem where even regnow or plimus emails seem to get bounced by people as spam. Unless something is done NOW, email will become entirely useless. I get around 1500 spams a day now. the people responsible should get the death penalty as far as I'm concerned.
bah!!

[Reactor]

Nice passion there, cliffski.

You could always email them once with a link that would allow them to recieve further emails. If they don't join your mailing list (or whatever it is) they can just let it go by not responding. It's easy and hassle free, and it shows you care about what they want.

I get thousands of spam emails a week, but I don't mind receiving emails from companies, as long as I feel like I'm recieving them for a reason. The moment I start getting two emails a week about products I have no intrest in, or some other garbage, I start to call it spam.

[Nemesis]

@cliffski
Make sure your email is not appearing on any public web page.. you might have registered on a forum where your email is visible and hance grabbed by the spam email crawlers. Perhaps googling your email address may give you an indication.

@lakibuk
As for an automatic subsciption to a newsletter, that's technically spam!

[Redclaw]

I dont even bother with newsletters anymore. 99% of email appears to be spam, do i really think its worth getting put on spam blocklists for the 0.01% of people who will read the newsletter?Personally I think that is a mistake. I find that people who have subscribed to the newsletter are very, very receptive to buying. Yes, not everyone on your list will read the newsletter, but of those that do I find a good percentage of them make a purchase. And as for getting blacklisted, if you use a 3rd party newsletter service like www.ymlp.com that isn't really an issue.

[Hamumu]

Absolutely, Redclaw. I make big piles of sales every time I announce a new release through my (opt-in!!!) newsletter. Yes, MY inbox is nothing but a giant flood of spam, but my average customer isn't someone whose email is plastered all over the web, so they get considerably less and actually look at the titles of each email they get (actually I do too, it just takes a LONG time). I remember how funny it was when my dad freaked out that he was getting 25 spams a day. Oh, the horror!

I'm in the camp that says it's spam to send them an unasked for newsletter. It's not LEGALLY spam, but it's bad manners. I always try to do things the way I wish other companies I encounter would do them, and I hate receiving any email I didn't ask for. I have opt-in boxes (which are NOT pre-checked, another pet peeve) on the checkout page of my site, so anybody who does want to hear more from me is able to say so. The boxes are very visible and right near the submit button, so I presume anyone who doesn't click them doesn't want to be spammed!

[MattInglot]

For those of you that say a newsletter is spam if not opt-in (and I agree), what about update notifications for the product?

[kerchen]

For those of you that say a newsletter is spam if not opt-in (and I agree), what about update notifications for the product?

Put update announcements on your website. I rarely sign up for developer newsletters, but I periodically check developer websites for update/patch announcements. Putting announcements on your site also has the side benefit of showing people that you support your products, you're still in business, etc.

[svero]

My definition of spam is randomly targeted emails. People who grep the web for emails and send a million penis enlargement pill ads randomly in the hopes that large numbers and small percentages will pay off.

Contacting customers I don't strictly regard as SPAM in that same sense.

However, that being said, I only mail those customers who opt-in. I don't consider it true spam to mention a product upgrade to someone. In fact I'm sure many people who are unaware of various free upgrades would appreciate it. But all the same I consider it a question of respect to the customer to let them choose whether or not they want to be contacted.

I do make some odd exceptions though. For instance if I discovered a very bad bug in a new game I would mail everyone and tell them about the fix. Or in certain cases if I get an email from a 3rd party sales site where I can't ask the customer when they buy, then I may mail them once and ask them if they want to be notified of product updates.

[Jack Norton]

I don't think that emailing customers about my games can be considered spam.
I consider spam emailing to me emails concerning VIAGRA :D
If I buy a game and the company want just to inform me about new releases, is ok. After all if I don't want to read it, I can just look at the sender and if I see "Winter Wolves Newsletter" I instantly delete it :eek:
It's bad when you start to see randomly generated names "andrew miller" - "John" - "Rebecca" etc with absurd subject that I get angry...! :mad:

[arcadetown]

When I purchased a book from Amazon they promptly started send us "We value your feedback" and "Special no shipping charge this month" type messages. Personally thought it was quite clever as the wording made it feel like they really provided you something useful that wasn't garbage spam.

[cliffski]

think of it in retail space though. I just bought a whole bunch of sausages for a barbequeue. If tommorow night I got a phonecall from someone saying "We are glad to see you bought some sausages, maybe you would enjoy some of our new tasty chilli sauce?" I'd be livid. Why is it any different if the transaction is digital?
When I buy sausages, I dont have to give the shop my phone number, but if I buy a shareware game, I HAVE to give up a means of contacting me post-sale. This dosent mean I want to be contacted, any more than I wanted a phone call from the supermarket.

[papillon]

Personally, it would be the annoyance of the phone acll that would upset me, not the offer. If a shop mailed me saying "We see you bought X, here's a coupon for Y" I would not be angry. I might or might not bother looking at the mail, depending on how busy I was, and I might or might not use it, but it wouldn't freak me out.

Some people, it would, which is why there's all the anti-loyalty-card paranoia. I think it's best if you leave it as a checkbox people who really don't want news and offers can untick. Mailing people who *don't* want to be mailed should only be done in cases of very important announcements (like bugfixes, or if you're having an honest-to-goodness going out of business sale, may as well mail everyone for the last hurrah - if you're leaving anyway, you won't be around to complain about the spam to for long. :) )

[MattInglot]

It's bad when you start to see randomly generated names "andrew miller" - "John" - "Rebecca" etc with absurd subject that I get angry...! :mad:

I've gotten so many spams from Andrew Miller that I've filtered that name.

[terin]

Your customers are a goldmine. You can throw definitions of spam around or your "moral" beliefs on spam all you want, but here's the key:

If you believe you will gain more sales than you would lose in reputation and sales through angry customers then you should send it. Else, don't.

I will always reccomend my clients use any means neccessary to get the word out. I certainly don't force them to (in fact, one of them refuses to use this method), but risking people yelling spam or being angry is generally worth the big boost in revenue. This is SPECIFICALLY true for any company which has not been dividing the e-mails out ahead of time with an opt-in feature... but may even be true for one that has.

My point on this issue is: Do what is best for your business, and that in turn is what is best for you. (Over simplification of the capitalistic rule... of course, game theory slightly disagrees and says that you should do what is best for you in conjunction with what is best for the rest of the world...)

[Nemesis]

@terin
Not 100% sure about this, but technically from a legal perspective (in the US and several other places), any unsolicited newsletter for which a recipient has not excplicitly signed up is considered spam. This includes even beneficial notifications about free upgrades etc. That is, the recipient can still legally report you as a spammer.. it would have to be a sadistic ba***rd to do that sort of thing anyway.. but it's possible!

So do you think it would still be worth the risk to send out notifications without an opt-in, no matter how minor?

[Hamumu]

As he knows, I TOTALLY disagree with Terin. That kind of thinking is why the world is in the craphole it is today (in every sense, especially the environment, but marketing is a major one). You MUST MUST MUST apply your morals to your business or you are Enron. After all, the only thing they did wrong was to get caught. Cooking their books raised their profits, so it was the right choice (under the assumption they wouldn't get caught) - who cares if California was economically crushed by it? You know all those viagra spams you get? All 46 billion of them? Those exist ONLY because they make more profit than it costs to send them out. What Terin is telling you to do is absolutely the only reason we get spam (of the non-debatable sort) today. If the people doing them put any moral thought into the annoyance and outright damage to businesses they cause (and they know it's happening!), they wouldn't do it. And viagra sales would dip by 0.2%.
All I'm saying is, people, you don't have to run your business at 100% efficiency. You're not a robot. At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself, and presumably if you're an indie, you run this business because it's what you love to do. You're gonna love it a lot less if it turns you into a ruthless bastard.

Rant conclusion: if you DON'T think it's spam (or otherwise wrong in some way) to do this, go ahead and do it. But if you DO think it's spam, don't justify it by the profits it will generate you, or you will be completely deserving of all the hundreds of thousands of spams you get from kgkjhfgjh@kjhtkh every day. You're the problem! YOU are kgjjkhth@kghkjt!

[Mike Boeh]

So, Mike... Let's say you made a new version of Dr. Lunatic. You sold 6 copies before you realized that there was a terrible bug in it that wouldn't let the player get past level 3.... Would you email those customers?

[grimreaper]

@Terin
You've just lost yourself a bunch of brownie points.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then killing your competitors will be great for you, though not for the rest of the world.

Being a capitalist does not mean you have to be rude or impolite. Being plain greedy is enough.

Grow up.

Brian Azzopardi

[Hamumu]

@MikeB:

That in fact happened! And I didn't email them. I posted on my forum, and emailed my announcement newsletter. When people buy, they can opt-in to either or both newsletters. If they don't, they probably don't want to be bothered, and if they do get stuck and bothered, I'm sure they'll email me and ask about it. But if your question is would I call that spam, I wouldn't. Spam laws have gotten pretty sniffly lately, so it might be legally, but I certainly have no moral problem with telling people there's a fix for something they bought. I don't do it, partly because it's too much trouble, and partly because I like to err on the side of less spam. Starts getting hazy when you're telling them there's new levels available for free, and gets downright blatant spam when you're telling them there's a sequel available or some such.

Hey, everybody's got their own ideas, all I'm saying is stick to your guns, don't throw away your ideals because it'll make more money. Do what you think is right! In the end, the long long run, you'll probably make MORE money by being kind and respectful to your customers. And if you don't, so what? If you can't succeed in business being nice, you'll get an ulcer and die of a heart attack. My customers love me!

[Andy]

Mike I got no the connection - "your customers love you" (great btw!) and what?
We interpret our newsletters as help and advice to our current and potential customers - so, we also respect them very much and that's really mostly the question of wording - in connection to a problem in common and inside the newsletters as well. ;)
Yes, all ours are opt-ed. But check the title of the thread "newsletter=spam?" - sure not!

"spam is randomly targeted emails" - that's 100% correct - RANDOMLY targeted...

[GameStudioD]

Sending unsolicited emails is spam.

Having said, that you can take a middle of the road approach. How about sending out an email that says: Do you want to subscribe to our newsletter? Click here for yes. You are still spamming (but its just 1), but at least its better than signing everyone up for a newsletter they may not want.


My customers love me!

I have bought a lot of shareware games and researched many indie websites over the past few months, and Dexterity Software and Hamamu Software are the only indies who can make this claim. Extremely customer-aware. :D

[Nemesis]

Ok.. let's take the hypothetical case of the new version of Dr Lunatic crashing on level 3:

While morally it would be beneficial to notify your customers and offer your assistance with an update, legally, it could still be considered as unsolicited email.

I think the wisest option would be to post a notice on your site's forum. If any angry customer (not subscribed to the newsletter) asks you why he / she wasn't notified, simply pull out your law book and quote the law stating something to the effect that you are respecting his/her privacy by not sending them unsolicited mail. At that point, it would also be a good opportunity to re-emphasise the benefits of subscribing to the newsletter.

In summary, do your best to keep your customers happy, but "cover your butt" in case a psycho customer wants to give you trouble.

[Coyote]

Unsolicited email is not spam. Mass unsolicited email is. If you were never allowed to email someone who had never contacted you before, we wouldn't get much communication done over the Internet, would we?

That's why the anti-spam 'laws' are pretty touchy right now - it's very hard to define. There's stuff that's clearly spam, and stuff that's clearly NOT spam, and a grey area between.

In the U.S., the new "Do Not Call" list exempts businesses with which you have an established relationship - you have done business with them within a certain period of time (I think one year). So in the above example - I'd say that legally and ethically it would be fine to email your customers to let them know of an issue.

Of course, you can get your domain blacklisted by doing practically nothing at all, but that's another story.

[luggage]

This only appears to be applicable to the UK but...

http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/evershed03/December/e80111203.htm

To quote a section...


There are limited exceptions to the need to obtain
consent including where the recipient's details have been obtained by
the sender during the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale of
a product or service to that recipient and the direct marketing is for
similar products or services.

So this means its ok to send an existing customer details of any updates\new games?

Scott

[AnotherDev]

Put update announcements on your website. I rarely sign up for developer newsletters, but I periodically check developer websites for update/patch announcements. Putting announcements on your site also has the side benefit of showing people that you support your products, you're still in business, etc.

Well, I'll soon release the version 2 of my game and plan to give it for free to all the registered users of the version 1.

I don't think they will accuse me of spamming if I email them about this. Well I surely hope so.

I don't think a simple note on my website would be enough since I doubt they visit my site often.

[Reactor]

I don't believe people care about what technically is or isn't spam. They care about people sending them an email that doesn't benefit them in some way. If spam benefited people, I don't think they would have a problem with it. But, as we all know, spam does exactly the opposite.

If you send one helpful email to your customers, it's unlikely they will have a problem with it, whether they technically believe it's spam or not.

[svero]

Ok.. let's take the hypothetical case of the new version of Dr Lunatic crashing on level 3:

I think I could make the argument that the correct moral thing to do is notify your customers in some cases. I guess it might depend on the bug itself. What if it were "formats 30% of hard drives" on level 3? Simply stating that you were within the bounds of the law and therefor are not responsible is not an ethically sound position. I think a customer would have a pretty good and totally fair argument that you should have told them.

Personally I think Hamumu is too strict in his interpretation of what spam is. I personally don't mind receiving notices from companies where I've bought a product. To me there's an implied interest. That's very different than the 100-500 or so emails I receive completely randomly every day because some company used a virus or some other illicit means to harvest it. It's a world of difference.

The problem really is that some companies take advantage and some don't. There's a blurry line. What is taking advantage? Is 1 email a week telling me of new releases too much? For me yes.. for others maybe they like it. Whenever I send even my double opt-in newsletter I get mail from people saying "Hey thanks! I look forward to this" and mail from other people saying "Unsubscribe me at once you bastard!" because they forgot they joined. At some level when you're mailing thousands of people every scenario starts to present itself. Is one email a year saying a new version pr free upgrade is available and adds 30 new levels taking advantage? I'd say no. I want that email!

[Nemesis]

I don't believe people care about what technically is or isn't spam.
Yes.. but we do, because we want protection in case, for some crazy reason, someone decides to act on it and the law isn't on our side in that case. If it's possible to target the group that specifically received the defective version and if that group is small, the chances are much less likely of course.


If you send one helpful email to your customers, it's unlikely they will have a problem with it, whether they technically believe it's spam or not.
Unlikely, but not impossible. I know.. I'm being a little paranoid perhaps, but I'd rather err on the right side of the spam law! :)

[grimreaper]

When most apps have updates, say MediaPlayer or WinAMP, they bring up a dialog box telling you about it. It is the job of the application to tell the user there is an update. Ofcourse this requires a connection to the internet, but then again updates are not very frequent so being able to call back home once a couple of weeks should be enough. Users should have the option to switch this off, ofcourse. Email is not really needed for updates.

grimreaper

[Mithril Studios]

Unlikely, but not impossible. I know.. I'm being a little paranoid perhaps, but I'd rather err on the right side of the spam law! :)

You keep talking about this "spam law." Please point me to a source that describes this "spam law", because as it stands, I don't know of any in existance.

And if you are refering to something the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia came up with; it doesn't apply to me or you. I live in South Dakota, and the long arm of their laws stop at the boundaries of Nevada.

If you can show me something that the U.S. Federal government has enacted about spam (or, less likely, the South Dakota state government) then there's a worry for me about breaking the law. For you, unless you are a US citizen, our laws don't apply to you outside our borders (even if you are a US citizen, if you are outside the US our laws affect you only marginally.)

As for me, I haven't decided yet how to handle this issue. I'm leaning towards if someone buys a game, they are automatically opted-in. They have the opportunity to opt-out at time of purchase, or any time after that, of course.

Anthony

[Hamumu]

It's the Federal Can-Spam Act:

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

It's a very new thing, but it was big news! I don't actually know what it says, didn't read it myself.

(incidentally, check out the root site... appears to cover the whole world and right on down to specific cases!)

[Mithril Studios]

Thanks Mike,

Sorry Nemesis, I stand corrected. That's what I get for discontinuing cable tv. :rolleyes:


From the text of the law, it appears that "transactional or relationship messages" (e.g. email to someone who bought a game from you, and you need to warn them about an error or update) are legal.

Otherwise from reading through the law, the things I'm taking away if you send out an email, you have to:
a. identify that it's a solicitation.
b. offer a "remove me" option.
c. have a valid physical address.

I don't read anywhere that it's prohibited from sending out commercial emails whether they are unsolicited or solicited; only if the recipient requests to be taken off the list.

Anyone else see it differently?

Anthony

[Nemesis]

@Anthony

heck, of course I don't expect the FBI or something to hunt me down for an unsolicited helpful email sent to a disgruntled consumer of an indie game! :) I was speaking in general actually.

As I said, we're probably raising a storm in a teacup over this. But personally, I wouldn't bother to notify any of my (hypothetical.. but let's not go there..) customers unless they have opted for notification. I would clearly state the benefits of opting in, only once in my purchase / key confirmation email.. that's it.

If a customer gets stuck on Level 3 or whatever, let him / her come back.
- If he / she's on the newsletter, he / she will be among the first to know about the problem and the solution.
- If he / she isn't subscribed and goes back to my site and sees the issue and solution posted and self-serves hinself / herself, that's great.
- In the worst case I might receive a vitriolic email as to why he / she asn't notified to which I would respond politely pointing out that he / she didn't opt for the newsletter (and respect to his privacy through spam act etc) and then proceed to assist him with getting a patch or fixed version. In closing I would then encourage the customer to sign up :)

I agree with you that it is a silly measure but at least the indie is still safe while still offering the required support to the customer.

[terin]

Man, I took a couple days off this board and I got a loss of brownie points! (man, and I really wanted those brownies... :(...)

I actually don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, the "legal" side of it is 99% gossip and there's little illegal about it as long as you do it with some tact and intelligence.

Morality is really the subject of this thread. Is it MORAL to send the E-mail.

In my previous post I had leaned towards ignoring the moral issues and making a business decision out of it. I made the mistake of simplifying a very advanced economic concept at the end of it: Capitalism and Game Theory

Let's talk about game theory, which should be the true governing body of economic based decisions. However, game theory is complex enough that I can't really think of a great way to describe it that wouldn't end up making everyone say "Sending an e-mail to someone should not take this much thought.." Oh well, here it goes.

Here's the general gist, mind you, we are in this case ignoring the legal vs. illegal issue.

When you make the decision you must decide what impact, positive or negative, it will have on all persons affected, and balance that against what impact it has on you as a person. Therefore, this part of game theory is often solved in reverse using these totally annoying diagrams which I had many tests on in college... Decision Trees!

We'll simplify it a bit and assume the only two possibilities are sending an e-mail or not sending it (alternatively, it could be sending it, not sending it, advertising that you don't send it, sending it only to opt-in people ect. ect. ect. ect. ad nausium)

SOOOO. The "facts" (all of which you would have to determine on your own using statistics)

90% chance that your reputation loss causes a total loss of 10 units
10% chance that your reputation loss causes a total loss of 1000 units

If your reputation loss is only 10 points then:
50% chance sales increase 100 units
50% chance sales increase 150 units

If your reputation loss is 1000 units then the same scenario will apply.

What do you do?

Well... The average net gain for the positive side (last step) is +125 units for both.

The average net loss for sending it is -109.

Therefore, if you do not send it, your "gain/Loss" is 0 (again, this is simplified, in reality it could be considered that not sending it could have other implications)

Your net gain/loss of sending it is +16. You should send this e-mail.

This model assumes all variables in the world are quantifyable. It also assumes you have knowledge of the variables. We know that is impossible in this case... so what it comes down to:

You've got to do what you think is best for your business. What is best for your business is going to be what is best for your business when you take the rest of the world into account (hence why the straight capitalism approach is flawed, why monopolies are usually disbanned by the government, ect.). In the end, I look at it like this:

If you purchased a local rock band's CD at a concert and 6 months later they produced another CD, wouldn't you be interested to know about it? Would you mind getting 1 e-mail about it? Some of you may, that is ok. I wouldn't. I believe the majority of the world wouldn't mind at all, and in fact many would be very interested to know more. Hence why I think its a good idea, no need to do huge decision trees...

PS: Decision trees are easier to describe if you actually see one written down... If you are really interested in this tool, which is EXTREMELY useful for making decisions where you have a good grip on the variables, I strongly suggest looking it up somewhere.

-End long winded post of extreme marketing boredom. Hope this clarifies and re-earns my brownies.

[terin]

PS: Mike (Hamumu) said something about Enron. Slight additional side note NOT related to him directly but related to everyone in general to keep in mind when dealing with these things:

Morality and Legality are not linked.

Actions can be moral and illegal, immoral and legal, illegal and immoral, and moral and legal.

Examples: Illegal and Immoral: Rape
Immoral and legal: A legal loophole that gets a murderer off the hook.
Moral and Illegal: Speeding while rushing your friend to the emergency room.
(I hope I dont need an example of legal and moral, lol)

So, my point is, don't jump to the conclusion that because I may make a decision that disagrees with someone's morality that I am taking a step towards becomming the next Enron: That was Illegal (law) and immoral by just about everyone's standards.

[grimreaper]

Terin:

The great thing about statistics is that anyone can play that game - but I'll spare the forum my ninja excel skills...

As for game theory - no, its not that hard. You should look up the something called the "tragedy of the commons". If people send as much email as is good for their business, as you advocate, they are trying to maximize their utility. If everyone, or a majority, what will infact happen is that the global utility will infact be reduced.

Think of a bunch of farmers. If they exercise self-control when grazing their sheep then everyone will benefit. If however most/all of them attempted to maximize their own income, overgrazing would occur, leaving everyone worse off. Email is suffering from the same fate.

Email is now in the situation where it is becoming useless - in other words, greedy b*st*rds have ruined an excellent means of communication for all of us.

As I pointed out in a previous thread, there are other, even better, means of keeping customers uptodate.

grimreaper

[terin]

Well, I agree that e-mail's use is declining, I think you can still benefit from using it at this time. Maybe in a few years time it will no longer be that way, I can't tell. What I can tell is your marginal utility for using it at this time is positive, and like the tragedy of the commons approach you are faced with the following dillemma:

If you don't use it the resource will still exhaust its self, because there are plenty of people with far less moral hygene. If you don't use it the one who gets most hurt is you (assuming it would positively impact your business).

Its a crap game and its tough to make a hard-line stance, but if you think the root of the spam problem is companies which you have made purchases from informing you of new products I think you're a little loopy :-).

But like I said in my first post, I have nothing at all against people who wish to try to save the commons, just as I have nothing against people who try to save the environment. In life I practice moderation, I avoid doing things that are incredibly dangerous to the environment, but (unlike my sister) I also see that me driving a car is a neccessary evil. In my mind, sending out a newsletter to your previous customers is the same. If you disagree, that is awesome, you can design a marketing strategy AROUND disagreeing, it is just more difficult :-)

[Hamumu]

Yes, I think you know how difficult it can be to deal with a moral business plan!!

Regarding Enron, it was only the moral side I was referring to - it's just a coincidence that what they were doing was also illegal. There's PLENTY in business that's done that is immoral but not illegal. Child labor in Indonesia's an example. As you said, they're not linked, which goes both ways: just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

I typed in a big preach about saving the commons, but I just couldn't leave it... too off-topic, and way too preachy. I'm not as grotesquely self-righteous as I sound, I'm really a wallflower. Anyway, I don't believe it's right to sink to the lowest common denominator. That's an extremely dark road at the bottom of a lot of slippery slopes.

I will stop now... this has really devolved from a spam discussion, and I'm sorry about that! But I will add this: I recently found a really old email in my inbox about a Regsoft seminar about the Can-Spam act where they were going to be talking about how you can set up double-opt-in measures to comply with it. I didn't see that mentioned in the bill summary, but it may be part of the law. I'm much too lazy to read the big text to find out. I am actually single-opt-in now and have wanted to upgrade for a long time, but I'm a busy and lazy dude.

One other thing about it (in the bill summary) that wasn't mentioned above is that if you DO send something unsolicited (which I think is defined as when you haven't already sold them something and they haven't opted-in, so it's a pretty unlikely state for any of us, spam-wise), you need to check your list against some national Do-Not-Email database. Of course, that's a US issue. There, how's that for on-topic words?

(If you'd like to see just how preachy I can get, I posted what I didn't post here on my Journal on my website)

[Mark Fassett]

Terin - do you jump off of cliffs just because everybody else does? Sending bulk mail that was not asked for is spam. Just because someone buys your product does not mean they want emails about anything, especially about products they didn't buy. And just because everyone else is doing that, doesn't mean you should.

[terin]

As my final post on this subject:

If my jumping off a cliff would positively impact my life, then heck yeah I would, ESPECIALLY if everyone else were doing it... that way people wouldn't look at me funny.

"Did you hear, Joe jumped off a cliff. Mentioned something about adrenaline being good for the heart. What a werido."

Anyway, I believe a lot of people agree or have no real opinion on this subject. However, its much easier to write that you should save the commons than use it... I don't mind sounding like the "bad guy" though and voicing the devil's advocate stance. I hate spam too :-)

[Fost]

This only appears to be applicable to the UK but...
No, that applies to the entirity of the EU - it was rolled out across Europe on the same day


http://www.legalday.co.uk/lexnex/evershed03/December/e80111203.htm
So this means its ok to send an existing customer details of any updates\new games?
I looked into this quite a bit when it happened, however, I'm no lawyer, so it;s pinch of salt time ;) :
Any existing database can be used, and future customers can also be emailed as long as you provide them with the option not to, when they make a purchase.

I reccomend adding an 'I wish to receive news of new games/updates' checkbox to your order page if you have are using a payment system that has templating functionality.

You also need to provide customers with a way to be removed from any list.

It is important to know that if you do not do this, it is illegal, and you can be prosecuted and fined. I'd suspect of course it would be difficult to prove, and no one would bother to file charges - especially if you aren't based in the EU.

In any case, all this is good practice and good manners in my opinion. Anything you do that isn't in your customers best interests will just harm you in the long term - they'll stop buying from you.