Internet Advertising, E-Zines And The Small-Business Entrepreneur - Part 5
Besides the aforementioned possible
trend among some e-zines publishers to
undercut, to a certain extent, the
potential advantages for small-business
entrepreneurs that were inherent -
initially at least - in the idea of opening
up e-mail-e-zines to commercial
advertising, there is another problematic
facet to this whole issue. This involves a
struggle between two competing interests.
On the one hand, there is the matter of
free speech. In the present context this
refers to the expectation on the part of
advertisers that they should be able to
say whatever they wish - within certain
boundaries of propriety, ethics and
constitutional entitlement - especially
since they are paying for the privilege of
doing so.
On the other hand, there is the duty of
care which e-zine publishers owe to their
readership. This duty of care has several
aspects.
Much has been said about the fact that
one of the attractive qualities of free
e-mail-e-zines is that they are an opt-in
medium which allows publishers to,
among other things, get around the
spamming issue. In other words, any
given subscriber has had to take willful,
conscious, active steps to request being
included on a mailing list for whatever
e-zine.
Presumably, the reason such a decision
was made has something to do with the
belief of the one who is opting-in that a
given e-mail-e-zine has something of
value or interest to offer her or him. This
something may be information,
discussion, links, advice, support,
opportunities, entertainment, and so on.
However, in addition to such reasons,
there is something else which the
subscriber believes he or she is opting-in
to. This something else is a relationship
of trust.
Perhaps because of the immediacy of
e-mail and the way it arrives, for many
although not all individuals, in the inner
sanctum of one's living quarters, many
people are very, very sensitive about
receiving unsolicited e-mail. If the same
person received some unsolicited
communication through snail-mail, the
individual might be annoyed but is
unlikely to feel threatened.
The situation with e-mail appears to be
somewhat different. Many people who
receive unsolicited e-mail seem to
respond as if there has been some
fundamental violation of their privacy, as
if there were an intruder in one's life and
home.
Given this sensitivity, to be willing to
admit an e-mail-e-zine publisher into
one's home, requires that an individual
overcome a certain inherent resistance to
an invasion of one's personal space -
even if this is only virtually. Someone
who is opting-in to a subscription list
wants to believe that the publisher is
there to help them, not hurt them.
Why do e-mail-e-zine publishers go to
such lengths to continuously repeat at the
beginning and/or end of all of their
publications that they are in your e-mail
in box by way of invitation? Why do they
give assurances that the names and
e-mail addresses of subscribers will
never be given or sold to third parties?
This is done in order, among other
things, to demonstrate they are aware of
the trust which is being extended to them
by the subscriber. They are trying to
assure the reader that her or his trust
will not be violated.
What becomes of this trust issue when a
publisher accepts advertisements that
make all kinds of exaggerated,
misleading, unproven claims? Where
does the duty of care of a publisher leave
off and the caveat emptor (buyer beware)
responsibility of a subscriber begin?
Some e-mail-e-zine publishers appear to
want to place all of the responsibility on
the reader by claiming that all the
publisher is doing is placing certain
information before the readership, and
the latter group is the one that must
exercise the requisite caution and
sensibility. This claim is somewhat
self-serving, since the publisher in such
circumstances has a conflict of interest in
the matter.
Such e-mail-e-zine publishers are
receiving money from people (i.e.,
advertisers) who are seeking to have
commercial information placed in the
homes of a list of subscribers who
believed they were opting-in to something
besides hyperbole or exaggerated and
misleading claims. The publishers are
earning money in the process, yet, their
manner of earning money could be
putting their readership at financial, if
not, emotional, psychological and
commercial risk - things to which the
readership most assuredly did not opt in.
How many of the businesses that are
seeking to place their advertisements
before an opt-in readership were
investigated by the publishers to ensure,
within reasonable limits, that the
readership was not being placed at risk?
Is this a fair issue to raise?
I think it is. If one of the reasons why a
publisher is being admitted into
someone's home is because the latter
understands that the publisher is
promising, even if only indirectly, that he
or she is not going to do anything to
violate the initial offer of trust which
permitted the publisher to be allowed to
come into the reader's home in the first
place, then, the publisher owes a duty of
care to the reader with respect to
ensuring, within reasonable limits, that
the contents of the e-mail-e-zine contains
nothing - including advertisements -
which will harm the reader.
Screening ethically-, if not legally-,
challenged commercial "opportunities"
that are making all manner of wild,
unsubstantiated claims about enormous
profits is not just the responsibility of the
reader. This screening process is also a
duty of care which the publisher owes to
the reader in reciprocation for the trust
which the latter has extended to the
publisher.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a
growing number of e-mail-e-zine
publishers who have too many dollar
signs dancing about in their heads and
are permitting this to interfere with a
duty of care which has ethical and moral
precedence over any profit motive. An
e-mail-e-zine should not be a vehicle
which allows the publisher to use the
readership as a means to the publisher's
end of profit. What began, presumably,
as a symbiotic, win-win, relationship
between publisher and reader should not
be permitted to turn into a largely
parasitic relationship in which the
publisher has little concern or care about
what "opportunities" the publisher may
be introducing the readership to through
the advertisements being displayed in the
e-mail-e-zine.
Advertisers may be free, within limits, to
say whatever they like in their ad-copy.
However, the right of the advertiser to
free speech does not entitle a publisher to
abdicate the latter's basic duty of care to
the readership.
Freedom of speech is a duty of care
which a democracy owes to its citizens in
reciprocation for the trust that has been
extended by the citizens to the body
politic with respect to the regulation of
social interaction in a way that helps
establish, as much as is humanly
possible, 'domestic tranquility' and
circumstances which are conducive to
the 'pursuit of happiness'. But, freedom
of speech is not the only, or, necessarily,
even the most fundamental of such duties
of care.
In fact, any democracy consists of a
variety of such duties of care which
play-off against, modulate, temper, and
limit one another in an endless dynamic
of competing social and personal
interests. This observation also is
applicable to the world of e-mail-e-zines.
Publishers owe a duty of care to both its
advertisers and its readership. But, the
more primary of the two duties of care is
to the readership, and if this is not so,
then the whole idea of opt-in readership
being an ethical solution to the problem
of spamming is sheer hypocrisy.
There is nothing wrong with making
commercial information available to a
given readership. Nonetheless, when this
information is misleading, fraudulent,
exaggerated, and potentially harmful,
then judgement should be exercised on
the part of the publisher which will be in
the service of the readership, not the
advertiser.
My feeling is that if publishers do not
subscribe to the foregoing perspective,
then all too quickly they are going to
begin to find an increasing number of
webbytes opting-out from the idea of
opt-in-e-mail-e-zines. Most people only
have so much forbearance when it comes
to permitting others to violate the bond
of trust which has brought them together
in the first place.
A publisher may argue that a reader can
unsubscribe at any point so, once again,
the ultimate responsibility rests with the
individual who is opting-in to the
subscription list. However, a remedy
which is available after-the-fact of being
exposed to potential risk does not
remove the duty of care of a publisher to
take reasonable steps to ensure there is
no, or little, potential risk for a reader to
begin with.
The publisher of an e-mail-e-zine may
also wish to argue that having to screen
advertisers and assess the degree of risk
to the readership which may be inherent
in a given commercial offer or
opportunity is not really a reasonable
expectation to have of a publisher - such
a process, someone might argue, would
be far too time-consuming. To someone
whose only interest is to use his or her
list of subscribers as a key to earning
advertising dollars, then, yes, I suppose,
such an expectation is unreasonable, but
this attitude also is very revealing about
the level of regard which the publisher
has for her or his readership.
Perhaps part of the opting-in process
should be a statement by the publisher
concerning his or her intentions with
respect to this duty of care issue. I am
sure there would be a lot of potential
subscribers who might be very hesitant
to opt-in to a situation in which the
publisher clearly indicated that she or he
felt no obligation to try to protect the
readership from potential risk in relation
to, among other things, the information
contained in advertisements.
Just as there are truth-in-lending laws,
maybe there should be
truth-in-subscriber-list laws. Let there be
a full disclosure of intentions on the part
of a publisher before the fact of
opting-in, rather than merely providing
an opting-out remedy after the fact of a
subscriber having served, unwittingly, as
a means to an e-mail-e-zine publisher's
self-serving financial ends.
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |
Return to Internet Menu
|
