Comments on: Another Political Email Idiot http://redpillemail.com/blog/2010/another-political-email-idiot.html embracing the sometimes painful truth Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:37:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Rory Carlyle http://redpillemail.com/blog/2010/another-political-email-idiot.html/comment-page-1#comment-2026 Rory Carlyle Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:21:59 +0000 http://redpillemail.com/blog/?p=895#comment-2026 I can't believe that Fiorina thinks it's okay to send such a misleading email. "FW: A Quick Campaign Note" - is clearly deceptive and the messaging contains no potentially forwarded data. Regardless of affiliation or industry, practices like these are bad for everyone. The agencies of record for these types of campaigns should be flogged and stripped of email privileges. *shaking head* Only thing I agree with in this message is the notion of a personal approach. It's an engaging and powerful strategy if done correctly; Speaking directly to voters is perfect, but did they answer the replies that came back through that address? My guess would be that they didn't. If that's the case then this is a failure of epic proportions. "Personally" sending out messages asking for money and not replying to the people who are pledging funds. Email isn't and has never been a one way street. The faster marketers figure that out the better. You'd think that since CAN SPAM the government would hold themselves to a higher standard; candidates for a public position should have to abide a little tighter to the rules rather than stretching them to whatever they need. "Dear Ms. Fiorina, You're a spammer. Cheers, Rory Carlyle" I can’t believe that Fiorina thinks it’s okay to send such a misleading email. “FW: A Quick Campaign Note” – is clearly deceptive and the messaging contains no potentially forwarded data. Regardless of affiliation or industry, practices like these are bad for everyone. The agencies of record for these types of campaigns should be flogged and stripped of email privileges. *shaking head*

Only thing I agree with in this message is the notion of a personal approach. It’s an engaging and powerful strategy if done correctly; Speaking directly to voters is perfect, but did they answer the replies that came back through that address? My guess would be that they didn’t.

If that’s the case then this is a failure of epic proportions. “Personally” sending out messages asking for money and not replying to the people who are pledging funds. Email isn’t and has never been a one way street. The faster marketers figure that out the better.

You’d think that since CAN SPAM the government would hold themselves to a higher standard; candidates for a public position should have to abide a little tighter to the rules rather than stretching them to whatever they need.

“Dear Ms. Fiorina,

You’re a spammer.

Cheers,

Rory Carlyle”

]]>