Outbound Email Marketing no longer permitted

[Federer]

Due to the General Data Protection Regulation (to be implemented in May 2018), does that mean that the previously-allowed unsolicited emails to corporate subscribers (B2B) is no longer permitted?

If I understand correctly, starting Spring next year, it is no longer permitted do any form of outbound marketing (to businesses with which we have never had any prior contact) for domains names. The only model would be "passive sales".

“The EU Commission have proposed making business-to-business (B2B) marketing via electronic channels permissable only with an opt-in consent. Under PECR email and SMS B2B marketing is opt-out. Under the new rules businesses would need a prior consent in order to contact other businesses with direct marketing communications. A big change.”

https://dma.org.uk/article/b2b-marketers-to-face-a-much-tougher-regime-under-the-new-eprivacy-rules

 

[Federer]

It seems that last month, the European Commission published its text for the replacement for the ePrivacy Directive, which will now be a regulation and apply equally to all member states. It softens many of the clauses that could have had a significant negative impact on many business-to-business (B2B) marketers....

The previous directive stated that B2B marketing via electronic channels would require a prior opt-in consent. This would mean any marketer wanting to email staff members of limited companies, publically limited companies, local authorities, other government departments and limited liability partnerships (corporate subscribers) would have to obtain prior opt-in/subscribe consent from individual staff members, a huge change and challenge for the marketing industry.

The text of the final version of the Commission’s proposal has moved away from this draconian position and does not require opt-in consent for B2B email marketing to corporate subscribers, although as a general rule consent will be required for sending electronic marketing to consumers. However, the current rules on the existing customer/soft opt-in exemption for consumers and staff members of sole traders and unincorporated partnerships are repeated in the proposal.

https://dma.org.uk/article/worst-eprivacy-b2b-fears-averted

 

[Lovekraft]

So will sending targeted emails to companies about domains for sale no longer be permitted as of Friday?

It all sounds a bit vague.

 

[KarlM]

From my rough understanding. It will stay like it has been for a while regarding B2B. So no sole traders or certain partnerships can be emailed without opt in consent. Emails cannot contain a personal name so would have to be info@ etc. Clear opt out instructions and contact details must be included.

 

[Edwin]

I wonder if the penalties for non compliance have increased? Might deter from using a third party to source email contacts for outbound if there is the prospect of a hefty fine or worse if they contact somebody they shouldn’t... At least if you do it yourself you have 100% control over lead quality.

 

[Lovekraft]

From my rough understanding. It will stay like it has been for a while regarding B2B. So no sole traders or certain partnerships can be emailed without opt in consent. Emails cannot contain a personal name so would have to be info@ etc. Clear opt out instructions and contact details must be included.

This is a shame, some of my best sales have resulted from emailing the right person within a business as the "info@" email address is rarely monitored by decision makers.. Now it looks like I will no longer be able to do this.

As a sole trader it's hardly as if i'm emailing hundreds of people on a daily basis, usually no more than a handful.

 

[Edwin]

Perhaps it will make LinkedIn's premium "Inmail" offering more valuable, as people can explicitly indicate they want to receive business propositions...

 

[Lovekraft]

Perhaps it will make LinkedIn's premium "Inmail" offering more valuable, as people can explicitly indicate they want to receive business propositions...

Good suggestion, time to start thinking outside the box.

 

[Lovekraft]

I'm trying to establish if contacting an individual within a company about a particular domain could fall under "legitimate interests" in some cases.

Anyone any thoughts on this? I'm surprised there isn't more discussion around this as I thought this new legislation could affect quite a few people on here.

There is a lot of conflicting advice out at present but some peoples interpretations of the new legislation is that if you can't viably seek permission in advance of sending an email to an individual and if you can justify that the email you have sent for marketing purposes is in their interests that this may be a workaround for B2B marketers. I think?! So many differing articles out there and the official guidance is vague at best.

 

[Murray]

if I emailed someone offering @Federer domain (for example) without his consent, then they reported him for this, even though it had nothing to do with him, could he get a fine?

All a bit mad isn't it

 

[Edwin]

if I emailed someone offering @Federer domain (for example) without his consent, then they reported him for this, even though it had nothing to do with him, could he get a fine?

All a bit mad isn't it

True now too. If you send out spam with forged email headers to make it look like somebody else sent it, you could get them in a lot of trouble...

 

[Murray]

True now too. If you send out spam with forged email headers to make it look like somebody else sent it, you could get them in a lot of trouble...

Used to be the way with SEO and spamming competitors with bad links to try and get them a penalty

 

[Lovekraft]

I wonder if the penalties for non compliance have increased? Might deter from using a third party to source email contacts for outbound if there is the prospect of a hefty fine or worse if they contact somebody they shouldn’t... At least if you do it yourself you have 100% control over lead quality.

From what I have read maximum penalties have increased significantly to £20 million or 4% of a companies annual turnover (whichever is most) for the worst offenders.

 

[cm1975]

I was reading an article on B2B cold emailing today.

It seemed to suggest that you can contact a company with a specific item you are trying to sell, as long as you can justify why you are doing it and you have sourced the email address in an appropriate manner. ie. you have selected an appropriate company to contact.

The article also suggested, as detailed above, that you can email the company, rather than targetting an individual.

So info@, contact@, rather than [email protected]

I’m happy to be corrected if wrong, as i was getting this from a few random websites.

 

[Skinner]

I wonder how it will fall if the company's official main email address points to a person ?

Many times I see email addresses which go direct to 1 person listed as the sites main contact.

 

[Edwin]

I wonder how it will fall if the company's official main email address points to a person ?

Many times I see email addresses which go direct to 1 person listed as the sites main contact.

I guess to be on the safe side, leave them off the list of companies you plan to email?

 

[scottmccloud]

Whilst I welcome what GDPR is trying to do by and large, I can't help thinking it's a bit like the 20mph speed limit in residential areas. Nice idea, ultimately unenforceable in many ways.

I just can't see the ICO having anywhere near the resources to cope with the amount of complaints they're going to get.

 

[Skinner]

I just read a comment on (the susan dibble fb group) where the consensus was (paraphrased) if an email address is posted on a business website/page/poster/brochure/etc as the point of contact or appropriate person, then under legit interest as a b2b message, regardless of it being bobsmith@ or info@ its fine.

The caveats was as long as your records indicate it was the publicly posted method of contact, and you can show where it was from should you be asked (SAQ), and you do the usual unsubscribe/blah, and you've check they haven't asked not to be contacted before, etc and its in connection to the business it was posted for it should be fine.

This didn't come from Susan herself, it was from various people in the group and most agreed with the consensus, much of it is still a little fuzzy (until someone tests the rules).

 

[Lovekraft]

I just read a comment on (the susan dibble fb group) where the consensus was (paraphrased) if an email address is posted on a business website/page/poster/brochure/etc as the point of contact or appropriate person, then under legit interest as a b2b message, regardless of it being bobsmith@ or info@ its fine.

The caveats was as long as your records indicate it was the publicly posted method of contact, and you can show where it was from should you be asked (SAQ), and you do the usual unsubscribe/blah, and you've check they haven't asked not to be contacted before, etc and its in connection to the business it was posted for it should be fine.

This didn't come from Susan herself, it was from various people in the group and most agreed with the consensus, much of it is still a little fuzzy (until someone tests the rules).

This is how I am beginning to understand it. Not had a great deal of time to investigate further as have been in hospital.

Email signatures are now going to become a lot longer and cluttered from now on! I imagine a lot of people won't agree with what is considered legitimate interests (especially those receiving such an email) or even know such a clause exists and will probably still complain. I've already had a couple of people complain after emailing them at a "info@" email address instantly quoting GDPR. Thanks GDPR! Another confusing mess, as if ".uk" wasn't enough for us to deal with.

 

[Skinner]

I was just chatting to someone else, and we have another issue.

Lets say you email Bob Smith at Widget Inc, and he says don't contact me again. How do you keep a track of these people ? Surely storing their email/phone would be a breach but if you don't store it, you may contact them again accidentally.

My suggestion was whenever you get a do not contact, take an MD5 or similar of their email / phone, and store it in a DNC list, 2 lists 1 for emails, 1 for phone numbers, once the unencrypted source is deleted, you won't be storing identifiable data, so should be ok.