Marketing by opt-in, opt-out, consent or legitimate interest?

Marketing email

I'm not virulently opposed to some marketing type emails, e.g. the occasional "special offer" from somewhere I buy from semi/regularly.

Two things I would like to specify, on those occasions when I might opt in, are

(i) a maximum-rate of emails (e.g. one per week, one per month, per three months...)

(ii) a time limit (e.g. no more emails & delete address after one year)

If I could set those, then I might even opt in more often (i.e. more than never-on-purpose). One email/month on sale items might lead me to check your website, but two/week/forever is outright annoying.

Complete nonsense

While I agree with the conclusion, the reasoning and "maths" (scare quotes definitely needed) used to get there are laughably wrong here. To start with, the use of "=" is completely wrong. You cannot equate a set with a variable, and you cannot equate an action with the result of that action. What the blog actually meant to use is "if, then" or "->". ie. "If a, then b", or "a -> b" often stated as "a implies b".

This is not just nitpicking terms, it's fundamental to the whole argument. By saying a=b, b=c and therefore b=c you are claiming that all three are the same thing. But b is trivially not the same thing at all, and there's absolutely nothing suggesting c must be the same as either a or b. The correct statements are:

a -> b

c -> b

Note that there is no connection between the two. The article argues that the former is true, but doesn't even attempt to say anything about the latter. It claims that c must be the same as a because it leads to the same outcome, but provides no argument or evidence to actually support that. If b is "I have a book on my desk", a is "I put it there" and c is "A carrier pigeon was released from a small town in Belgium and dropped the book on my desk" then both a -> b and c -> b are true, but clearly a and c are not at all the same.

Basically, the article treats a=b=c as the conclusion reached at the end of the line of reasoning, when in fact it is nothing more than their initial hypothesis. It's just a big mess of circular reasoning that starts by claiming a=b=c and justifies it by repeating the same statement several more times.

Straw-man arguement

This article is nothing but a straw man argument, and not even a well done one. The author should be reprimanded for such obvious garbage and the editor should also be reprimanded for letting it get published. What utter nonsense.

I have a simpler rule: if you try to market stuff to me I won't buy anything from you. That includes stopping buying if I have done in the past. My current house insurers will discover that later this year.

Opt In should be for everything NOT Opt Out !

Any reasonable person would say that you should have a tick box than it unticked as default and if you want to Opt In then fine otherwise you Opt out !

That goes for everything from Donor cards to marketing to anything else - Simple !

Certain people will not like my answer, but its the best for everyone !

I understand the is case for Donor cards, but if someone believes that strongly for them they will carry it !

You cannot just infer because they haven't got a Donor card to Opt Out that they must want to give any said organs for whatever purposes, what happens if they are a foreign national who doesn't understand the rules before entering UK !

Also it always worried me that they had an ulterior motive for letting you die to harvest your organs !

So no matter the case in question, it should always be Opt In situation !

Can you ever imagine MS using an Opt Out selection to avoid downgrading to Win 10 - No exactly - they just use other dirty tactics instead like closing said window to avoid answering the question actually means you want to upgrade or downgrade depending on your particular point of view !!!

Opt-in --- Opt-out.. it's all BS from here....

Have you noticed that advertisers don't care? They hate adblockers. They're bottom line is the "legitimate interest"? Do not Track is ignored. Spoofed phone numbers and email addy's are the norm. Hit the "unsubscribe" button and suddenly you're email addy has been moved to the "active email" list. You get a phones call that starts off with "can you hear me".. if you answer "yes" that ticked into the "the sucker will take calls" box and the phone rings more.

The whole marketing/advertising game is a lose-lose for anyone not involved in the profit side. Whatever the lawmakers come up with will either be ignored or the advertisers and miscreants will find a work around.

</rant>

Make it compulsory to report where opt-in was obtained with a refernce number so iyou trace it back.

This week on BBC radio business discussion show "The Bottom Line"...

Topic: British membership of the European Union - good or bad for business?

One contributor was complaining that the EU wants to legislate over and over again to restrict his ability to collect data and locate and market directly to prospective customers...

That's spam, I do believe. Spam, or maybe junk post.

I was slightly surprised that no one said so on the air.