<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Conundrum of Permission Marketing with Brokered Lists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.messagingtimes.com/2008/02/12/the-conundrum-of-permission-marketing-with-brokered-lists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.messagingtimes.com/2008/02/12/the-conundrum-of-permission-marketing-with-brokered-lists/</link>
	<description>email marketing, mailling list and newsletter software</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:12:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom O'Leary</title>
		<link>http://www.messagingtimes.com/2008/02/12/the-conundrum-of-permission-marketing-with-brokered-lists/#comment-126261</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom O'Leary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=1351#comment-126261</guid>
		<description>Well said Jacob. One of the big problems that I see with brokered lists is even if a subscriber did &#039;tick&#039; a box at some stage saying that he would be interested in receiving 3rd party emails that are relevant to him, he will quickly grow tired when that list is distributed to hundreds or thousands of marketers who ASSUME that their message will be relevant to him. Often, a subscriber to 3rd party emails isn&#039;t really sure about what they are signing up to.

The beauty of permission marketing is that the recipient determines relevance; not the marketer. And this is becoming a demand by email recipients today. They want (and deserve to have) complete control over their inbox.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said Jacob. One of the big problems that I see with brokered lists is even if a subscriber did &#8216;tick&#8217; a box at some stage saying that he would be interested in receiving 3rd party emails that are relevant to him, he will quickly grow tired when that list is distributed to hundreds or thousands of marketers who ASSUME that their message will be relevant to him. Often, a subscriber to 3rd party emails isn&#8217;t really sure about what they are signing up to.</p>
<p>The beauty of permission marketing is that the recipient determines relevance; not the marketer. And this is becoming a demand by email recipients today. They want (and deserve to have) complete control over their inbox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob</title>
		<link>http://www.messagingtimes.com/2008/02/12/the-conundrum-of-permission-marketing-with-brokered-lists/#comment-126239</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:37:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=1351#comment-126239</guid>
		<description>The best brokered lists consist only of addresses where the user opted-in to explicitly receive third-party offers on the relevant topic, not just offers from the collecting organization. That said, the complaint rates are much higher for such campaigns and justifiably so from the users perspective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best brokered lists consist only of addresses where the user opted-in to explicitly receive third-party offers on the relevant topic, not just offers from the collecting organization. That said, the complaint rates are much higher for such campaigns and justifiably so from the users perspective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

