CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) laws dictate that companies must provide consumers a means to opt-out, and any U.S. company seriously desiring to avoid a lawsuit and punitive action has complied. However, the way they have chosen to do so reflects, at best, a serious misunderstanding about why such laws are necessary in the first place, and at worst, outright apathy or malice towards the consumers’ desires.

–See laws for commercial emailers at the website for the Federal Trade Commission (here).–

A few months ago I opened a Bank of America account because my wife sung the praises of the online banking features the company offered. It didn’t take me long to see what she meant. They are impressive! From a Bank of America login, I can view balances and statements, pay bills, and transfer cash from one account to another. It has, without a doubt, made my life easier, and they should be praised for seeing the value in adding value to the consumer.

Friday morning I logged on to pay a few bills before I went to work. This has never been easier! Having already set up my accounts to be paid, I was able to do it with one hand (my non-writing hand) while I attempted to placate my little girl by bouncing her on my knee (and stabilizing her with my right hand). The process had its hiccups, though, and though it didn’t upset me terribly, represents something about a lot of marketers that upsets me across nearly all industries that are represented on the Internet.

After I logged in, I was asked to confirm my email address, and things started to go downhill. The email address was already correct, and I started to suspect they had no reason to believe otherwise. It had only been a few months since I opened the account, after all.

I was provided with two opt-out messages before I confirmed the address. There were two checkboxes; one of them, regarding marketing messages, was unchecked, and the other regarding statement updates, was checked.

Getting increasingly suspicious and feeling the sinking need to look closer, I noticed that the language of the first (already unchecked by default) told me to check the box if I did NOT want to receive marketing messages. The language on the second (already checked by default) told me to check the box if I WANTED statement updates. In other words, within the same form and context, they provided different ways to opt out.

Bank of America followed the letter of the law, but they did so with a method that can only be described as misleading since people typically don’t read those sorts of messages, and the action required to opt out changes from one email message to the next within the same form.

I’ve been in these sorts of debates before: The marketing managers are presumably concerned that their bonuses will be partially based on the number of people who sign up for emails. I can think of no other reason they are so adamant that they find some way to ensure people get marketing spam they don’t want.

Although Bank of America didn’t ask for my mailing address (which they already have, because they have a legitimate need for it) at this stage, many marketing managers will ask for all the information they can get, just because THEY want it, not because they need it to deliver anything of value to the consumer. In usability tests, I’ve observed that users gripe about the extra fields (not noticing that all of them aren’t required) even as they fill it out with fake information.

Many times they tell us that they wouldn’t even fill it out, if we weren’t asking them to, because the site is asking for information the company doesn’t need. This is a problem in and of itself to marketers, who are trying to establish brand affection and loyalty.

In light of that, why do so many of us presume this is the way to build a brand …. to annoy our customers while we get fake information that has no use to us?

If information really has value to you as a company, don’t manufacture methods that end up confusing people about what they’re getting and what is required of them. Instead, engineer a process that either legitimately will require it or would make consumers want to give it to you because they know they will get something of value as a result of your using that information they freely gave you.

Email can be a viable and effective marketing medium, but the more email users get that they really didn’t want, the less effective it will be for everyone. Don’t send emails to anyone who hasn’t indicated a desire to receive it. Ultimately, it’s better if your audience gets an email that they are expecting AND WANT than to get an unwanted email only because you wanted to force it on them or trick them into accepting them …. regardless of what the law says.