In the United States, Double opt-in has been considered best practice for years. However, many people may be surprised to know that dual access is not a CAN-SPAM requirement, nor is it required for countries with the most stringent laws.
Why is there a dual opt-in? What are the benefits of double integration and why did not you welcome good practice in other countries such as the United States?
In a nutshell, I think this is about the amount of spam produced by the country. Although you have other benefits of using dual opt-in, the most important benefit is that you have proof that your subscriber has subscribed.
This is in the US for two reasons:
1: USA Usually
2: The USA has the world's second largest spammer.
It follows from the above that recipients in the United States are more of a "spam" button than the "unsubscribe" link because of the most stringent legislation that requires subscribers and not subscribers. Therefore, if you use double opt-in and accuse spam, you will be able to go to the complainant with armed duplicate insertion information to go to the Internet service if it is blacklisted and refutes the fee.
such as in the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Italy, Germany and the like countries … Since their legislation is based on opt-in rather than choice, reporting as spam instead of reporting was not such a big issue that generally reduces blacklisting opportunities.
Therefore, due to stricter legislation and less blasting activity, other countries have not implemented double opt-in strictly in the US – basically because there was no need for it.
Before we contemplate, let's look at some definitions:
One-off intervention: A single opt-in can be considered if the subscriber registers v. e-mail communication. v will send you an email that will either sign up or subscribe to a form on your site. You can send or not send a confirmation or "welcome" email. I'm not sure that the percentage of legitimate marketers is a "one-time opt-in" VS "single sign-in, confirmation email", but my observations; it appears as if the majority sends the automated confirmation email (most ESPs require) or a welcome e-mail.
Double Opt-in (also called "Enhanced In / Out" Loop Opt-in): This is one step further. In the confirmation email, the subscriber requested that he click on the link to finalize the subscription request. Just clicked on the link.
Retains Subscriber 100% – Confirms Email Subscribing to 100% over. If you send a confirmation email or a welcome email, you also need to be able to determine if the email used for the subscription was a working e-mail address.
From a business point of view, the one-off opt-in leader is the way. As Ann Holland from MarketingSherpa immediately stated:
"A professional publication means you run your business as a business, because business does not hinder sales (or opt-in)." If I changed the company's policy of double-integration which would reduce my monthly opt-ins by up to 50%, I would have lost significant revenue. Not smart business. "
Not all companies can afford to lose 30-50% of their potential subscribers. It is easy and tempting to let the "lost subscribers" pass because they are not worth it because they obviously lacked enough interest in the response, but there is enough evidence to support that not only due to lack of interest is not the double opt-in process …
Bill Nussey from Silverpop said: "In my opinion, the only way to make customers more angry than unwanted emails is MarketingSherpa Email Marketing Benchmark Guide 2007 (US based) only 37% of B2C companies use an opt-in.It is interesting to note, and it should be borne in mind that all of the reports referred to in this article are US-based reports.This not only shows dual opt-in popularity in the United States, but many of these results, such as the above results, are USA-specific and can not be considered as general worldwide achievements.
Against and Against Double Opt-In
Even in 2002, ClickZ reported a loss of 40-60% and has not changed since then … all reports seem
Sherpa marketing is a In a 2005 study by Pivotal Veracity, it turned out that 18% of filtered messages are transactional, such as welcome messages for new opt-ins.
However, this is not all fate and darkness. The dual opt-in state is supported by increasing lists using double opt-in, resulting in higher quality lists. This is based on the assumption that you are committed and interested in completing the subscription process.
Subscribers with dual enrollment are more likely to receive e-communication between incoming mail than a single opt-in subscriber. Sherpa marketing was a 10% difference between double and single opt-in lists.
Traditionally, one of the advantages of dual introduction was to find a cleaner list … single opt-ins now send confirmation or welcome emails, this should create a substantially clean list as a double-insertion list that ensures non-recipient addresses and deletes them from the list
opt-in also says that there is a greater chance that the subscriber forgets about signing up if they only used an opt-in … but it is difficult to understand that they are better remembered, simply because it responded to an email
The most important thing to note is what choices you choose, that e-communication is interesting, relevant, and regular, increases your chances of retaining the subscriber and does not cause them to " forget "
I personally do not think you usually say that one option is better than the other. Every business has to decide themselves for their geographic market, the industry, regardless of B2Cs or B2B, and eventually MarketingSherpa, it is economics.
Finally, if two are why you are not testing and what works best for you?