Well three great things have happened this week for the email world. The first was AOL's position change on their enhanced whitelist. Matt Blumberg at ReturnPath had a great post earlier in the week about this. Matt also did a great job on CNBC's Power Lunch (you can see the video clip on his blog as well) explaining why the GoodMail/AOL plan to charge mailers for delivery was not good idea.
Today I learned that the Hawaii legislation mentioned in my earlier post was not brought out of committee, and is scheduled to be brought up again next week. This is due in part to reservations raised in testimony by the Hawaii Attorney General about the legislation (including references to CAN-SPAM and the potential legal hurdles). I spent time on the phone with several State Senators in Hawaii, and it was clear from our discussions that they realized they were not given all the facts. It is great to see a slow-down in this steamroller.
Finally, the court in Utah agreed to accept an amicus brief filed in the case their by several advertising organizations (including the Email Senders and Providers Coalition). The only down side to this is that one major organization was missing from the list. The DMA. I had great hopes after conversations with John Greco that the organization was changing, and posted about this last year. Well the DMA has burried their head in the sand and once again has turned its back on the electronic side of the direct response business.
In a speech to the New York Direct Mail Club Greco said “I’ve heard some people were puzzled or even disappointed that the DMA did not join the amicus brief filed a few weeks ago by … organizations to raise concerns over the Utah legislation,” he said. “We knew if we did participate, it would get spun as ‘DMA Attacks Efforts to Protect Children.’ You know that is what the headline would be.”
I guess regardless of the headline, those of us that pay dues to the DMA, would expect it would take the position that is best for its members.