<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Case for Double Opt-In</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/</link>
	<description>by mobileStorm</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eydie</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-10187</link>
		<dc:creator>Eydie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-10187</guid>
		<description>Your caution about double opt-in is even more relevant right now, with the criticisms flying against Facebook and its Beacon program. Beacon, for those who don't know, lets online retailers tell all of one's "friends" about one's recent purchases. Users complain that there's only a tiny window of time on which to act on an "opt out" screen, or else that the opt-out isn't even noticeable. User-friendly, obvious opt-outs are necessary to gain the trust of consumers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your caution about double opt-in is even more relevant right now, with the criticisms flying against Facebook and its Beacon program. Beacon, for those who don&#8217;t know, lets online retailers tell all of one&#8217;s &#8220;friends&#8221; about one&#8217;s recent purchases. Users complain that there&#8217;s only a tiny window of time on which to act on an &#8220;opt out&#8221; screen, or else that the opt-out isn&#8217;t even noticeable. User-friendly, obvious opt-outs are necessary to gain the trust of consumers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaren Angerbauer</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9262</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaren Angerbauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9262</guid>
		<description>To justify an opt-in of any sort, there needs to be some sort of affirmation, whether it be in the form of a verification email (double/confirmed opt-in) or confirmation email that simply affirms that a sign up took place (single opt-in).  If neither of these occur, then it would be hard to say that there was really any opt-in process at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To justify an opt-in of any sort, there needs to be some sort of affirmation, whether it be in the form of a verification email (double/confirmed opt-in) or confirmation email that simply affirms that a sign up took place (single opt-in).  If neither of these occur, then it would be hard to say that there was really any opt-in process at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Brownlow</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9258</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Brownlow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9258</guid>
		<description>OK...so am I right in thinking that what you're saying is this...

What we conventionally think of as single opt-in isn't really opt-in at all (since it may be a false sign-up). So we would be better served using the terminology that you suggest?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK&#8230;so am I right in thinking that what you&#8217;re saying is this&#8230;</p>
<p>What we conventionally think of as single opt-in isn&#8217;t really opt-in at all (since it may be a false sign-up). So we would be better served using the terminology that you suggest?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jaren Angerbauer</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9257</link>
		<dc:creator>Jaren Angerbauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9257</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark,

To answer your question, unless there is some sort of verification of sign up, there is no way to tell that Joe actually was the person who submitted the sign up request.  To clarify this even further, if I were to go to a newsletter site (that didn't use any opt-in methods) and sign up for a newsletter using *your* email address, they would be happily (and ignorantly) sending you newsletters that you never actually requested -- thus the "no opt-in" scenario.

Thanks,

Jaren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark,</p>
<p>To answer your question, unless there is some sort of verification of sign up, there is no way to tell that Joe actually was the person who submitted the sign up request.  To clarify this even further, if I were to go to a newsletter site (that didn&#8217;t use any opt-in methods) and sign up for a newsletter using *your* email address, they would be happily (and ignorantly) sending you newsletters that you never actually requested &#8212; thus the &#8220;no opt-in&#8221; scenario.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Jaren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Brownlow</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9252</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Brownlow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-9252</guid>
		<description>Applause for the thrust of your post Jaren, but the terminology has me confused a little. If Joe signs-up to the newsletter, how can that be "no opt-in"?

Isn't that single opt-in as it's usually defined by the email marketing industry?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Applause for the thrust of your post Jaren, but the terminology has me confused a little. If Joe signs-up to the newsletter, how can that be &#8220;no opt-in&#8221;?</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t that single opt-in as it&#8217;s usually defined by the email marketing industry?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elyse</title>
		<link>http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-8996</link>
		<dc:creator>elyse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:29:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/a-case-for-double-opt-in/#comment-8996</guid>
		<description>Great, easy to understand read on Opt-in emails.   And yes, I think for CAN SPAM purposes, the easiest and most effective way to have them confirm opt-in would be to place a hyperlink in the body of the email that the user clicks, and the job is done!  
Thanks for the info Jaren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great, easy to understand read on Opt-in emails.   And yes, I think for CAN SPAM purposes, the easiest and most effective way to have them confirm opt-in would be to place a hyperlink in the body of the email that the user clicks, and the job is done!<br />
Thanks for the info Jaren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
