Sellerdeck, please tell me why you deleted my post

[feemish]

Sellerdeck, please tell me why you deleted my post. Last night I posted regarding conflicting advice given about GDPR 'soft opt in'.
For some reason, this post was deleted. Can you message me and tell me why?
Thanks

[feemish]

If it was because I linked to a source outside of Sellerdeck then please let me know and I can repost without the links. I really think this discussion will be helpful to us retailers who use email marketing lists.

[feemish]

It would have been nice for the mods to let me know why the post was deleted rather than just maintaining radio silence. On other forums I frequent the mods are much more transparent and communicative.

[Duncan Rounding]

Hi Mark - I have no idea what happened to your post. I did have a look but couldn't find any history in the admin panel.

[feemish]

Thanks Duncan.. not deleted by you then..

[Josh Barling]

Sellerdeck, please tell me why you deleted my post. Last night I posted regarding conflicting advice given about GDPR 'soft opt in'.
For some reason, this post was deleted. Can you message me and tell me why?
Thanks

Hi,

Speaking with colleagues, I can confirm this post was removed by Sellerdeck. I'm told that it included our GDPR documents which explicitly said not to re-publish, therefore the post was removed.

Thanks, Josh Barling

[Buzby]

I read the post and didn't see any documents. The post linked to two articles about GDPR that seemed to contradict each other.

From memory Feemish was asking people’s opinions on which was correct, Sellerdeck or Phil Rotherwell.

I assumed that Sellerdeck removed it as they didn't approve of a link to Phil Rotherwell's website.

Why we are talking of documents, the document you sent me was a generic document that tells you how to secure Sellerdeck software, why so secretive? You sell a software package, and then won't inform people on best practice to set it up. There was no information in there that is secretive, or copyrightable in my opinion. How can you copyright information as what permissions folder should have, or to secure your PC?

[feemish]

Hi,

Speaking with colleagues, I can confirm this post was removed by Sellerdeck. I'm told that it included our GDPR documents which explicitly said not to re-publish, therefore the post was removed.

Thanks, Josh Barling

Hi Josh,
No it didn't include your GDPR documents.. that's for certain.. because I don't have them! You wouldn't give them to me because I don't have the SellerDeck 'Cover'.
Mark

[Josh Barling]

Hi Mark,

I've had confirmation, it was the links within the post.

What part of the GDPR are you looking to debate? Its probably worth starting a new thread or commenting on an existing one if its of similar content.


Thanks

[feemish]

It was a post looking at 2 opposing views regarding the soft opt in for email marketing purposes.

[Josh Barling]

It was a post looking at 2 opposing views regarding the soft opt in for email marketing purposes.

Hi Mark,

Do you have a specific question or are looking for more of a general debate?

At Sellerdeck we have looked at each case and our conclusion is that we recommend a 'soft opt-in' using Legitimate Interest as the legal basis for contacting customers with communications outside of the Contract you have for fulfilling the order. This can also be used for individuals contacting you with questions, but not placing an order.

A 'hard opt-in' means you must use Consent as the legal basis for contacting customers. This approach will result in a significant reduction in your marketing opportunities moving forward and looking back; as you will need to get consent for previous orders.

This is our understanding to the best of our knowledge and we offer this information without liability - ultimately it's your decision.

Which approach have you decided to take?

Thanks

[feemish]

Thanks Josh, well the much more attractive option is the 'soft opt-in' which I have been using for years. I will continue with this option using legitimate interest.

It's a bit disconcerting however when, as customers, we are being bombarded with emails from previous contacts asking for our consent to remain on their lists!
Has everyone got it wrong apart from us?

[saucysal]

The people who got it wrong were the people who wrote the GDPR. It should have been written so there could be no debate, no choice of interpretation. However, that would not have provided work, and thus more income, for lawyers. Some businesses have taken the hard line, as this will be safest, even though it means considerable loss of customers on the email database. We have taken this hard line, losing 90% of our customer email databases, but it has the effect of cleaning them out and leaving the most interested customers. Those that didn't reply to the GDPR email are ticking Yes for newsletters when ordering, so we are gradually building the database back up. Sarah.

[Matt Price]

There are valid reasons for using either approach.

Taking the 'legitimate interest' route means you get to keep the bulk of your email list and can more easily opt-in new customers.

Using the 'consent' route means you may well end up with a smaller marketing list, but those who have elected to remain on it will more than likely be much more engaged and you therefore may not notice the difference as much as you might expect - as saucysal has stated above.
Consent might also be considered the safer option as you are much less likely to face a challenge from a customer as to why they are being marketed to - as you will have proof of consent and they have taken deliberate action to remain on your list.

[Josh Barling]

Hi Mark, I've also received a lot of emails asking for consent, however only a small proportion when I think about how many online businesses I've engaged with (even just in the last year). We used information from a wide range of sources, including GDPR seminars and lawyers; and an ongoing underlying tone was that many businesses and consultants would recommend getting Consent as it is the safest option.

I agree saucysal and I believe the biggest challenge is understanding who the ICO had in mind when drafting certain clauses. It's interesting to hear the figure of 90% and hopefully you'll find no change in engagement since you've now got explicit consent and therefore an engaged audience.