Nice to meet you today. I’ll remember your breakdown of the four areas I should concentrate on for my next elevator speech.

I agree that Craig Addy did a great job today with his introduction.

I’ve changed up your company name in the post. Thanks for the note.

I had a great time at HOBN and I expect I’ll be joining the group in future as well.

As regards the content of your one-minute presentation at the start of each HOBN session, I would recommend that you start out with a standard elevator pitch so that guests or members who haven’t shown up in a while get the idea right away about what you do. For the last 30-40 seconds, say something unique so that the regular members always pay attention to your latest requests re: sourcing.

Of course, it was only my first HOBN event, so I’m not an expert. But that would seem to be a good routine. I know that the few presenters who commented only on, say, the great mood of the city during the Olympics, left me feeling confused.

More generally, you should always have an elevator pitch that you can confidently share as soon as anyone asks “What exactly do you do?” You may need to alter it slightly for your audience, but it’s always good to be prepared with some stock phrases that show you know exactly what you’re doing.

Imagine my surprise to find myself so prominently featured in your blog post. It’s a great post, but then I am the last person to be objective given much of it’s content : )

You are so right about what you were seeing at HOBN and the value of this networking organization. I’ve done a good deal of networking over the years, including 5 years in BNI. Overall, it has all been valuable to me – but HOBN stands hands above the others as my all time favourite networking strategy.

I’m sorry we did not have a time to chat after. We will for sure in the near future.

Thank you for the Kids In The Hall Networking Video. Hilarious.

Craig Addy
Under the Piano

I never asked to be sent this stuff. But I recognize that when I give out my business card or contact info, there’s an implicit understanding that I’m going to get sent newsletters and other collateral unless I specifically say “don’t send me stuff” — and it works in both diections. That may not be proper according to some sources, but it seems to be the way business is run in the real world.

It’s nice, actually. I’m enjoying the newsletters people are sending me, and in the two cases where I didn’t see an immediate need, I just set up an email filter so I won’t see these newsletters until I get around to it, or just decide to delete them.

Happy holidays, y’all.

Now, Pete. As for GoDaddy, it may have been a minor point. Fine. But I felt I’d already dealt with your main point in my post when I wrote:
—-
“Sent indiscriminately”. Here’s where I think I may get off on a technicality.

Here’s the thing. I sent my newsletter out to about 550 people. Did I discriminate in regard to who received the message? Absolutely.

My original list of email recipients numbered about 1,200. These included friends, relatives, business colleagues, clients and a fair number of people whose connection to me remains a mystery to this day.
—-

I understand that you disagree with me including this as a mitigating factor which would get me off the hook. That’s fine. You’re entitled.

That said, if you’re going to strictly use the Aweber definition, then even your suggested best practice would also be considered spam:

You wrote:
—-
What would be less spammy and more sociable would to do something like send an email saying something like this

“Hi Pete,

I have a new ezine I’ve started if you’re interested in checking it out, please have a look at http://www.mynewezine.com you can sign up there if you’re interested and unsubscribe at anytime if you’d like.

Jonathan”
—-

Nope. Doesn’t work. According to your reading of Aweber’s rules, you’re saying that ALL unsolicited bulk email messages are spam. Then even this invitation would ALSO be spam. Indeed, anytime I send out a Cc message that my recipient didn’t specifically ask for in advance could be considered spam.

That’s insane.

And I’m pretty sure that’s NOT the kind of “spam” Aweber intended to target.

Getting back to the main point of the post, I sent out information to people I thought would want to use it — not strangers, not random email recipients, not even some of my closest friends and colleagues. I sent it to people I thought would actually want it. In nine out of 550 cases, I turned out to be wrong, and have since deleted those addresses from the list — including yourself.

Was this spam, on the same level understood by average people, where millions of messages went out to random recipients advertising the benefits of penile enhancements? Nope.

It could be seen as spam if one uses a definition that includes all emails using the Cc or Bcc function. But I don’t think that’s a practical definition and certainly one that is NOT enforceable.

I get the feeling you think there’s only one right answer, here — and that I’m somehow dodging your point. It’s not true. I never intended to spam anyone, but if I’ve offended you, then as I said before, I’m very sorry for that.

You totally avoided the major point. The aweber + spamhouse spam as bulk unsolicited mail which is totally different than emailing one person one email. please address the main point.

No screenshot is necessary. But I’m confused.

Why exactly are you discounting the dictionary definition — which wasn’t cherry-picked, since you can go ahead and find similar definitions in other online dictionaries, or print ones for that matter.

Also, if the message was spam, why did only about one per cent of recipients (who I had chosen based on their actual relationship to me as well as their likely interest in my information, which is a standard for any legitimate email) ask to be removed using my Unsubscribe instructions which were pretty standard? Seems inconsistent. Shouldn’t the quantifiable actual reaction by human beings be considered a legitimate test of whether something is or isn’t an issue?

And why are we using GoDaddy’s proprietary algorithm as the definitive definition of spam? GoDaddy’s had it’s own problems with poor filtering technology:

GoDaddy’s Spam Filter is Broken
http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/godaddys_spam_filter_is_broken.php

GoDaddy SPAM Police Are Big Pain In Butt
http://www.trstechnology.com/blog/index.php/godaddy-spam-police-are-big-pain-in-butt/

GoDaddy Email Fun
http://provisionit.blogspot.com/2009/06/godaddy-email-fun.html

I would reiterate that often, the technology simply gets it wrong. Your comments here, for instance, both ended up in my comments spam folder. For that matter, so did your previous comments on my other Wordpress blog. But I obviously don’t consider either of your comments spam, even if a particular algorithm considered them to be so. Clear?

X-Nonspam: Statistical 64%

phoning up my hosting site godaddy they confirmed that this meant that there antispam software (they apparently use 3 in combination) determined that your email was 64% likely to be spam.

I can send you the screenshot if you want.