Dear Bonnie Gillespie:
I’ve been reading your columns since joining Actors Access and Showfax and, first, would like to thank you for the generous sharing of information. You’ve provided much valuable guidance to your readers and I personally have benefited greatly.
The Delicate Art of Self-Promotion disturbed me a little because it endorsed a practice of marking as “spam” any industry communication the reader personally finds irritating. It also promoted the “BCC” email-sending procedure without much explanation of the mechanics and ramifications — thus, was not very helpful to non-geeks.
I subscribe to several email newsletters. Most authors have instituted a standard plea at the beginning of each newsletter that their sendings not be marked as “spam” because that means their messages to ALL recipients on the given system (Yahoo, Gmail, AOL, MSN, whatever) will be delivered to spam or junk inboxes. The fact that you personally don’t wish to receive an industry message should not cause that sender’s material to be classified as “spam” because many other recipients do wish to get that message, and may not know to check their “spam” or “junk” folders to retrieve such sendings after another recipient’s flag has caused it to be delivered there. “Spam” flags should be reserved for actual spam (Viagra, sex, bank scams, you know the usual offenders). So, however offensive to you the over-sending of industry-related news by a professional colleague may be, hitting “spam” is a cruel way to exact revenge because you’re interfering with that person’s honest attempt to make a living and you are punishing also all other recipients of this mass mailing.
From time to time I still have to extract my subscribed-to e-newsletters from “junk” folders because of the spam-flagging actions of others, even when I’ve created specific filters to receive them. Creating a filter that routes an unwelcome sender’s mailings to “trash” is different from marking it as “spam” and is a more benevolent approach to solving the problem.
Regarding “BCC,” I hear you loud and clear on this, as I detest having my own email address paraded before the world (especially in unwanted “forwards”). However, two things I’ve discovered: (1) No matter how detailed the tutorials offered, there are many senders who can’t or won’t strip the endless cavalcade of addresses off their sendings (so I use a designated low-priority email address to receive info from mass senders, keeping my critical email address free from inevitable abuses). (2) For the senders of mass emails/newsletters, the “BCC” option sometimes results in their messages being automatically routed to “junk/spam” folders of the recipients, instead of the inboxes — especially if images or links are included in these emails. I am still trying to figure out exactly how and why this occurs within each email provider’s system. Thus, for some critical updates sent to a list, I myself have been guilty of putting all of the addresses in the “TO” field, which means all addresses will be visible to each recipient, but the emails will successfully reach their “INBOX” destination.
In my defense, most of the recipients already know each other’s addresses anyway, but I still feel guilty when I do it. It is because of the “BCC” automatic “junk” designation that I still occasionally offend.
If you could do a column specifically on the mechanics of successful “BCC”ing, it would be great (or re-post the link if you already have, in a future column, for we who missed it).
Thanks for reading my observations on your latest column. I look forward to reading your future comments and columns on this and other topics.
Best Regards,
Carolle U
Cool, Carolle. Great, detailed defense of the refusal to use BCC and thoughts on the pros and cons of marking unwanted emails as spam. I totally get it and agree that this isn’t an easily-fought battle. It’s sort of like people who take up two parking spaces. I can rant. I can bitch. I can wish they’d understand how inconvenient they make life for others by being so self-centered or completely unaware of others in choosing how to park. That doesn’t mean they’ll stop doing it. Ever. Same with email annoyances. I do hope to reach and teach those who wish to do better, to provide better options to their mailing list members. But regarding those who don’t even realize (nor care) what they’re doing, it’s a losing battle. It’s just a vent on my part at that point. I’m so glad you actually “get it.” And I do understand and respect your choices!
I actually provided a great suggestion last week for managing mailing lists (Remember, I mentioned my own Cricket Feet Mailing List which is just a one-way Yahoo Group?) that allows users to manage their message frequency, their favorite email address in use for that type of message, and protects everyone’s privacy. It’s super simple: Create a mailing list. Invite folks to join. Message them through that system, which protects their addresses and gives them the right to leave at any time without having to worry about hurting feelings or inadvertently signing up to receive more crap. Win-win!
Because that option is available — for free — to people who want to engage in The Delicate Art of Self-Promotion, I have no apology for hitting “spam” on messages I never invited, when those messages break the common courtesy rules. If they give me a way to opt out and they don’t disrespect my privacy by refusing to use BCC, we’re all good. But those who simply refuse to take care of their audience? You bet. They get the big ol’ “mark as spam” without apology from me. And from a whole bunch of other CDs, agents, and managers too. Isn’t there power in knowing that? So you, as a promoter, can make a better choice? I think so.
Don’t worry about the “mark as spam,” here. We own our private server and I’m not teaching Yahoo or Gmail that this sender is “always spam” for other users of those types of accounts. It’s basically a routing filter, for our private server, just like you advised. And I would imagine that most casting offices, agencies, and management firms are also using their own domains and therefore doing the “easy” thing (marking as spam) as a way to create junk filters in their email software, without necessarily impacting the major email services’ routing of these messages.
Certainly, if I receive unwanted messages from someone who uses a contact management system that allows for easy “opt out,” that’s what I’ll use. What I was describing though is the much more offensive “create your own mailing list” use of email blasts. No opting in. No opportunity to opt out. No understanding of how to use BCC. Basically, irresponsible mailing list management. Absolutely, if there’s no option to leave the mailing list in a guaranteed spam-free way (as opposed to those set-ups wherein your click on a link to remove yourself from the mailing list only verifies your email address as “real” and gets you added to more mailing lists), I’ll just hit “junk” or “spam” or add the sender to the “auto delete, unread” rule in my software. You betcha!
For an excellent explanation of BCC (for the “non-geeks” — and frankly, I’m disturbed that understanding the concept of BCC makes one a “geek” rather than a “responsible user of the communications software.” I mean, no one needs to be told not to crank call to use a phone), start here: BCC Defined, Why BCC?, and Colleen Wainwright’s amazing two-part series on better emailing practices (part two really hits home the BCC concept). Just like we were taught in school how to type, I would hope that kids today are being taught how to use their computers responsibly. And if not, that’s bad news. Ah, but it’s an uphill battle and one which many readers told me they simply don’t even bother trying to fight (like the parking spot a-hole). That’s why the whole “mark as spam” thing happens. Sure, there are better ways. But because there are also better ways to send self-promotional email, it’s a cycle that begins with the sender’s choice.
And just like I said to end last week’s column, there is absolutely a way to have a better future with someone, when you start off on the wrong foot with this stuff. So let’s say you got yourself routed to spam through bad habits, initially. Then you learned better and hopefully you did better. And now your new messages from your new mailing list (which you invited the recipient to join, free to leave at anytime) never land anywhere other than the lovely inbox. Neat!
Yeah, we may never rid the world of unwanted email (self-promotional or otherwise), but if we can spread the word of “better practices,” we can hope that makes life easier for all of us. One message at a time.
Bonnie Gillespie is living her dreams by helping others figure out how to live theirs. Wanna work with Bon? Start here. Thanks!
Originally published by Actors Access at http://more.showfax.com/columns/avoice/archives/001012.html. Please support the many wonderful resources provided by the Breakdown Services family. This posting is the author’s personal archive.