Poll: Definition of "opt-in"

[yesthattom]

Update: Note: this is talking about web registration for a conference, but a paper mailing list.

[Poll #271336]

Comments

[origamislayer.livejournal.com]

By allowing users to check the box, you'll generate more good will and possibly more opt-ins. If you pre-check it, you'll annoy some people and others will miss it and will just sign off later once they realize they're on and think you're a spammer.

I'd also make it clear what the list will cover and what the address will (and will not) be used for. That'll hopefully increase your numbers. Or at least the number of people who genuinely want to hear from you.

[sweh.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, the UK laws (I used to work for VNU Business Publications and learnt a bit about this from the practical side) allow you to have a default "yes" as long as there is an opt out. On paper (for magazine subscriptions) that used to take the form of a negative (eg "Tick here if you don't want to allow your details....").

I was tasked on building an extensible web version of the form so I followed those guidelines... but I wasn't happy. Unfortunately companies that have free "trade magazines" make there money by (i) advertising [ a small amount ] and (ii) providing mailing list details meeting certain criteria [ most income ]. The mailing lists were done by the customer asking for a list of names matching certain criteria (eg "director, it related, spend authority, budget of 1 million or more") and they would get back a sheet of pre-printed labels.

As I said, that was the UK; I dunno about the US :-)

Because this was a major income source, the company wanted the default to be "option to opt-out". In your case I would recommend the "must positively subscribe" option. You may also want to allow them to have a secondary email address for list purposes (eg I use a lists address for my mailing lists, but my main address for confirmations/correspondence).

[bill-in-germany.livejournal.com]

I saw a discussion about this on slashdot the other day. They seem to think that setting the default to yes is equal to being a spammer!

[lediva.livejournal.com]

I'm amused/frustrated at how broad the definition of "spam" has gotten.

The company I work for sends out several mailings to our members on a regular basis. We never send anything to anyone who hasn't opted-in. We can go and look up in our database what any given member's communication preferences are. And we still get members complaining about spam to us.

If you don't want mail from us, DON'T CHECK EVERY SINGLE BOX FOR EVERY SINGLE NEWSLETTER! Rrgh.

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's "equivalent to being a spammer", but I do think the right way to do it is to leave the box unchecked until the user checks it.

[bruhinb.livejournal.com]

I personally feel both ways are acceptable under some circumstances. Starting with the clear box is the only why that is legitimately, "opt in," though. Starting with a set box is what I would refer to as "opt out."

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Opt-in is a variant on the older (I'm pretty sure) opt-out. Opt-out, which is how the PIRGs were funded from student fees on many campuses, is OK, but don't call it opt-in. The "opt" implies that that's what the user has to take an action in order to accomplish.