We are on the point of switching to campaignmonitor. The existing service already impressed us but the new version is even more suited to our needs.
We publish a number of monthly emagazines for a small range of clients (15 at present). For the moment they handle their own delivery but we aim to use campaignmonitor as the a basis for offering a newletter / delivery service as well. The CM spam policy is very clear and we have no issues with that. We will be marketing our services with the emphasis on quality of contacts not volume and will do our very best to convey the requirements onto our clients. If we consider that one of our clients is abusing the rules then we will cancel our contract with them as per our own terms).
The new CM gives our clients the possibility for more independant access to the service. Is there any degree of independance in terms of spam responsability? From CM point of view, if 1 of our clients breaks the rules can this client be sanctionned accordingly (ie db disabled/cancelled) or are we still 100% responsable as account owner? The worse case scenario being that the delivery service we offer our 15 clients is jeopardized by 1 client. We would like to be able to punish the guilty and not the innocent !
If you walk them through the system of uploading their lists, then the unsubscribe requirement will take care of the rest. Unless you feel you have a client that'll go in and remove people from the unsubscribe list, in which I'd simply remove their privledges to upload on their own.
The biggest problem we've found here is that the tolerance levels applied are unreasonably strict - 1 spam report in 5,000 recipients is considered acceptable - over this and you're at risk of account closure. The problem is in how the system is applied in that many legitimate recipients with hotmail addresses stupidly use the 'spam' button to unsubscribe rather than the obvious and prominently placed unsubscribe link.
We recently had an issue with this - in a list of 6,823 union members - all having explicitly provided permission 4,775 had hotmail addresses. The campaign received 28 spam reports (0.51%) and otherwise only 29 unsubscribes, which IMO is absolutely negligible given the size of the list. We received a notice of potential account closure however.
I really think this is one policy which drastically needs looking at as many so called 'spam' complaints from some webmail providers such as hotmail simply cannot be considered anything other than laziness on the part of the recipient and should not result in the legitimate provider being penalised or having their account terminated.
Does anyone else think this level (1/5,000) is a little draconian?
I think it might be more of an issue of not having their servers get black listed. Sure, your email had that number of spam reports, but if you multiply that by how many use this service, it'd all total up and run the risk of blocking the entire service for everyone.
I could be wrong on that, but most likely that's the reason for being so strict.