Politicians do not quite understand that unsolicited political email is spam of the worst kind.
Unlike political mail in your mail box, the frequency and intrusiveness is kept under some control based solely upon expense, time relative to the election, and frequency of the mail. You just do not get as much junk mail as you get spam.
And political spam is probably considered the worst of all.
It's tempting. It's cheap. It's quick. It's voluminous. And YOU pay for it (not the sender but the internet user).
But worst of all. It's considered an invasion of privacy by many, and a violation of trust by those who disclose their emails upon conditions of confidentiality to find those emails harvested by an internet spider or simply copied from a web site with limited access for limited purposes.
Those who permit their supporters to "opt in" to the email blasts are acceptable and well-received and best of all very effective in rallying the troops.
Unfortunately email is a great equalizer when facing the well-funded campaigns of others. David needs all the help he or she can get when fighting Goliath. But, many voters do not consider they are part of that battle, yet. Thus, emailing them with political spam not only fails in its mission of garnering support, but unlike snail mail it risks alienating voters.
Jim King has now learned the hard lesson of email. However, most people learn the first time. His first dalliance with e-mail was to encourage support for his daughter, 29 year old Katie King, when she ran for the unexpired district court judgeship. An apology was forthcoming following the concern of using governmental time and services to make the email (not to mention the claim it was limited to a few folks he knew even though many, many people reported receiving those missives). See, King e-mail blast asks for support for daughter.
I can't fault him for trying. The business model of communicating via iPhones, Blackberries, and whatnot has not yet been accepted by the average voter. With over a 100 BILLION SPAM emails per day as of June 2007, it is a small wonder the average person is upset when political spam gets past their filters and blockers and appears to be from a reliable and trustworthy source. A breach of the email castle is not always well-received.
The reason voters, and most people get upset when a putatively reliable source (other than a friend, family or close acquaintance) hits them with impersonal solicitations for money, support and votes is the question of how in the heck did they get the address in the first place!
E-mail harvesters are the most common source as little electronic pickers go through web sites grasping at email addresses. Another source is reportedly private lists being used for unintended purposes. Equally disheartening is using somewhat confidential or limited use email addresses at various web sites for unintended purposes. Just because your email is at an alumni site or other organizational site does not mean you want to be hit up for every cause that abounds. Plus, most of these sites have a condition on their use, and that includes a prohibited use of solicitation for funds etc.
With that in mind, here we go again. Read the story. Some recipients were not amused. Neither was St. X.
St.
Xavier High School is disavowing the mayoral campaign of Jim King
saying it doesn't support his candidacy and didn't give him permission
to use its logo or alumni database to send out a fundraising request.
My suggestion for those wishing to campaign in the digital age is to be invited into the homes of the voters and not crash the party. Build a site and let them come to your site, your blog, your social page or whatever and then choose to receive your RSS or email missives.
