USPSA Email Newsletter: USPSA Down Range

[rbgaynor]

Regardless of who is actually sending out the emails, this should have been an OPT-IN arrangement, not opt-out!

The privacy settings on the USPSA site cover being contacted for match results, alerts, and pre-match press releases. I see nothing authorizing them to send out monthly newsletters. (Unless they are going to claim that a monthy newsletter is a "USPSA Alert.")

This is permission-based email. The case can be made that by giving them your email address at all, you gave USPSA permission to email you from time to time with items of interest. I don't see the problem and think it's largely imagined.

That's complete crap, there is no clear permission for this whatsoever. If they continue to mail the USPSA board needs to hold an ethics hearing on those officials who violated the by-laws and released the private info. A class of action may exist for those California members whose privacy was violated and advertisers may have been lied to about the legitimacy of this list. The legal liability is real and significant.

Bill, I know you've been very involved in USPSA and beyond generous with your time -I'm not questioning that at all.

Edited May 19, 2014 by rbgaynor

[rbgaynor]

Is it possible that someone hijacked the USPSA logo and USPSA press releases for this?

No. USPSA is a partner in the effort. I do not believe that USPSA did anything wrong. If the information provided by Jay Corn is correct, we are doing a lot right.

The better question is why did we need a partner in this. It is our email list. Most of the content consists of other stories linked from the net and Shooting Wire. Could we not as done just as well or better without multi view?

No, we couldn't. You need to get a commercial email marketing service like this if you want to send out large amounts of emails like this. If you try to misuse your own ISP-provided email account with mass mailings, you quickly get flagged as a spammer and then you're screwed. Commercial email providers jump through all the hoops to avoid that problem for you.

I doubt getting a known mass marketing company who uses a known bulk emailer is all that smart an idea. It's entirely possible for an ethical organization to send their own email - it's only difficult for an unethical organization to send their own email.

[jester121]

All this talk of "releasing private information" is pretty silly. You don't really think USPSA has a printing press and label printer set up at HQ to run off copies of Front Sight, do you? Of course not. They provide a membership database to the company that prints and mails the periodical, same as any other organization that publishes magazines. Oooh, tin foil hat time - that evil printing company now has your membership information and could ... well... do something. If you don't like the email newsletter, click the Unsubscribe link and move on.

[Nik Habicht]

Regardless of who is actually sending out the emails, this should have been an OPT-IN arrangement, not opt-out!

The privacy settings on the USPSA site cover being contacted for match results, alerts, and pre-match press releases. I see nothing authorizing them to send out monthly newsletters. (Unless they are going to claim that a monthy newsletter is a "USPSA Alert.")

This is permission-based email. The case can be made that by giving them your email address at all, you gave USPSA permission to email you from time to time with items of interest. I don't see the problem and think it's largely imagined.

That's complete crap, there is no clear permission for this whatsoever. If they continue to mail the USPSA board needs to hold an ethics hearing on those officials who violated the by-laws and released the private info. A class of action may exist for those California members whose privacy was violated and advertisers may have been lied to about the legitimacy of this list. The legal liability is real and significant.

Really? I'd be shocked if the California law wouldn't contain an exemption for contacting folks with whom a prior business relationship exists, i.e. USPSA members in this case.....

And I'd be really surprised if there weren't an exemption under Federal law -- which might trump state interests here, since USPSA is in Washington, not California.....

If USPSA wanted to hire a telecommunications company to cold call every member, they could -- even for those folks on the Do Not Call list. Why? Because the membership has a business relationship with the organization. Now, if the telecom calls you and you ask not to be contacted again, they'll need to take action in order to comply.

The laws are complex -- I for one am glad that if USPSA decided to pursue this, that they contacted outside experts in the field. I would strongly advise them against trying to do this on their own.....

[rbgaynor]

Regardless of who is actually sending out the emails, this should have been an OPT-IN arrangement, not opt-out!

The privacy settings on the USPSA site cover being contacted for match results, alerts, and pre-match press releases. I see nothing authorizing them to send out monthly newsletters. (Unless they are going to claim that a monthy newsletter is a "USPSA Alert.")

This is permission-based email. The case can be made that by giving them your email address at all, you gave USPSA permission to email you from time to time with items of interest. I don't see the problem and think it's largely imagined.

That's complete crap, there is no clear permission for this whatsoever. If they continue to mail the USPSA board needs to hold an ethics hearing on those officials who violated the by-laws and released the private info. A class of action may exist for those California members whose privacy was violated and advertisers may have been lied to about the legitimacy of this list. The legal liability is real and significant.

Really? I'd be shocked if the California law wouldn't contain an exemption for contacting folks with whom a prior business relationship exists, i.e. USPSA members in this case.....

And I'd be really surprised if there weren't an exemption under Federal law -- which might trump state interests here, since USPSA is in Washington, not California.....

If USPSA wanted to hire a telecommunications company to cold call every member, they could -- even for those folks on the Do Not Call list. Why? Because the membership has a business relationship with the organization. Now, if the telecom calls you and you ask not to be contacted again, they'll need to take action in order to comply.

The laws are complex -- I for one am glad that if USPSA decided to pursue this, that they contacted outside experts in the field. I would strongly advise them against trying to do this on their own.....

You clearly have little to no knowledge of how this works or how privacy laws apply. Can you quote any alleged " federal exemption?"

If USPSA wants to do this they are free to ask for volunteers.

Edited May 19, 2014 by rbgaynor

[rbgaynor]

All this talk of "releasing private information" is pretty silly. You don't really think USPSA has a printing press and label printer set up at HQ to run off copies of Front Sight, do you? Of course not. They provide a membership database to the company that prints and mails the periodical, same as any other organization that publishes magazines. Oooh, tin foil hat time - that evil printing company now has your membership information and could ... well... do something. If you don't like the email newsletter, click the Unsubscribe link and move on.

The issue of print magazines and related privacy issues was covered earlier. You're way behind the curve.

[remoandiris]

If you file a lawsuit in Kalifornia the end result would answer the question and this discussion would be fixt.

[wgnoyes]

...

I doubt getting a known mass marketing company who uses a known bulk emailer is all that smart an idea. It's entirely possible for an ethical organization to send their own email - it's only difficult for an unethical organization to send their own email.

It's way more difficult than you think, for reasons I've already given.

So you're saying I can't use icontact to email promotional and informational materials to my 3500 customers? You're saying I can't use such a service to email my shooters about the next monthly match? The next Area 6 Championship? Why?

...

Bill, I know you've been very involved in USPSA and beyond generous with your time -I'm not questioning that at all.

Thanks for that. Edited May 19, 2014 by wgnoyes

[Parallax3D]

Regardless of who is actually sending out the emails, this should have been an OPT-IN arrangement, not opt-out!

The privacy settings on the USPSA site cover being contacted for match results, alerts, and pre-match press releases. I see nothing authorizing them to send out monthly newsletters. (Unless they are going to claim that a monthy newsletter is a "USPSA Alert.")

This is permission-based email. The case can be made that by giving them your email address at all, you gave USPSA permission to email you from time to time with items of interest. I don't see the problem and think it's largely imagined.

Show me where anyone gave USPSA permission to SHARE our email adresses with a 3rd party, or allow third parties to advertise to us via email.

Show me anywhere that it says that USPSA may share your information with a 3rd party. The only thing that REMOTELY could be used to justify this is the "Email Alerts", and I obviously DID NOT opt-in to that!

[rbgaynor]

...

I doubt getting a known mass marketing company who uses a known bulk emailer is all that smart an idea. It's entirely possible for an ethical organization to send their own email - it's only difficult for an unethical organization to send their own email.

It's way more difficult than you think, for reasons I've already given.

So you're saying I can't use icontact to email promotional and informational materials to my 3500 customers? You're saying I can't use such a service to email my shooters about the next monthly match? The next Area 6 Championship? Why?

...

Bill, I know you've been very involved in USPSA and beyond generous with your time -I'm not questioning that at all.

Thanks for that.

Bill - you're more than welcome to use a 3rd party mailer (although I'll warn you that a lot of companies black list them - I know mine does) to contact YOUR list - but that is not the issue here.

[wgnoyes]

The workaround for blacklisting from the email service providers is to set up a SPF record declaring the service provider as an authorized sender for your email domain name. Most users don't know to do that, and that's how they get tripped up. The provider will have documentation available on how to do that.

Show me where anyone gave USPSA permission to SHARE our email adresses with a 3rd party, or allow third parties to advertise to us via email.

Show me anywhere that it says that USPSA may share your information with a 3rd party. The only thing that REMOTELY could be used to justify this is the "Email Alerts", and I obviously DID NOT opt-in to that!

Who's advertising to you using uspsa-provided email lists?

They're not sharing, as in inviting mediabrief to make use of USPSA's email list for their own purposes. They've uploaded emails to their email provider so that they can make use of mediabrief's enhanced facilities for contacting large numbers of customers at one time.

That's what it looks like to me. But if you're suspicious, by all means contact uspsa directly and ask them and don't take "ignore" for an answer.

[wgnoyes]

...

Bill - you're more than welcome to use a 3rd party mailer (although I'll warn you that a lot of companies black list them - I know mine does) to contact YOUR list - but that is not the issue here.

Why? If I can do this with my customers, why can't USPSA do it with their customers? Dave Thomas and I were talking a decade ago about USPSA doing this very same thing with iContact or a similar service, and they just never followed through with it.

[rbgaynor]

The workaround for blacklisting from the email service providers is to set up a SPF record declaring the service provider as an authorized sender for your email domain name. Most users don't know to do that, and that's how they get tripped up. The provider will have documentation available on how to do that.

Show me where anyone gave USPSA permission to SHARE our email adresses with a 3rd party, or allow third parties to advertise to us via email.

Show me anywhere that it says that USPSA may share your information with a 3rd party. The only thing that REMOTELY could be used to justify this is the "Email Alerts", and I obviously DID NOT opt-in to that!

Who's advertising to you using uspsa-provided email lists?

They're not sharing, as in inviting mediabrief to make use of USPSA's email list for their own purposes. They've uploaded emails to their email provider so that they can make use of mediabrief's enhanced facilities for contacting large numbers of customers at one time.

That's what it looks like to me. But if you're suspicious, by all means contact uspsa directly and ask them and don't take "ignore" for an answer.

The default scoring for SPF in spamassassin is -0.001 (very, very slight nudge towards less spammy - almost no value at all). Forged SPF can really hurt you (+0.65 to +0.99) but valid SPF is almost no help.

...

Bill - you're more than welcome to use a 3rd party mailer (although I'll warn you that a lot of companies black list them - I know mine does) to contact YOUR list - but that is not the issue here.

Why? If I can do this with my customers, why can't USPSA do it with their customers? Dave Thomas and I were talking a decade ago about USPSA doing this very same thing with iContact or a similar service, and they just never followed through with it.

What you do with your customers is up to whatever agreement you have with them (and your desire to keep them happy and listening). As for USPSA it would seem that their behavior is at odds with what they disclosed they would do with the information they collected. This should have been strictly opt-in.

[Parallax3D]

What you do with your customers is up to whatever agreement you have with them (and your desire to keep them happy and listening). As for USPSA it would seem that their behavior is at odds with what they disclosed they would do with the information they collected. This should have been strictly opt-in.

^^^BINGO!! I did not opt-in to this. I DID opt-in to the match announcements and scores. I've also never seen anywhere specifically what USPSA's policy is.

[RaylanGivens]

My Personal Profile does carry an opt-out option regarding future mailings (see above screen print). I'm not sure why I seem to have different options than some of you, unless it is because I am a USPSA Life member.

[rbgaynor]

My Personal Profile does carry an opt-out option regarding future mailings (see above screen print). I'm not sure why I seem to have different options than some of you, unless it is because I am a USPSA Life member.

That bottom block does appear to be a Life Member only thing. But notice how nothing in the top block (the one all members have) would seem to cover this marketing newsletter.

[Jack Suber]

My Personal Profile does carry an opt-out option regarding future mailings (see above screen print). I'm not sure why I seem to have different options than some of you, unless it is because I am a USPSA Life member.

I am pretty sure that I did not have this option until I upgraded to a Life Membership. When my son gets home tonight I will verify by checking his profile.

[Too_Slow]

If you OPT-OUT using that you will no longer receive Front Sight. I got a notice about that earlier because I have not shot a match in a couple of years due to health issues but do still help out with the local club.

Brian

[sperman]

My request is that the Newsletter be a separate subscription from announcements by HQ. I've opted out of the newsletter, because it is of no interest to me. I fear that I have also opted out of all mailings from USPSA. (That is assuming that HQ will use this vehicle for announcing rules changes or other important information.)

[Charles Bond]

I agree with Bill Noyes 99% of the time but this is one of those situations where I differ. I am rather solid in by conviction that USPSA could and should have done this without resorting to a partnership with an outside vendor. There are plenty of methods that USPSA could have used to publish an on line publication without spamming anyone. How dog on hard is it to run a program where the server sends out batches of 10 emails addressed to 10 members with each batch being 3 minutes a part? Setting up a blog/newsletter/electronic and inviting members who subscribe to it in Front Sight is certainly within the scope of currently USPSA abilities. But that yet might not be the proper larger question.

A larger question is what does USPSA want to be when it grows up and why are we fearful of allowing that to take place? Most people do not know that the public interest, the only public interest that is listed on our tax filing used to gain 501c3 status is to choose and support teams for international competition. Now that might have been fine at the time that USPSA was created but we have in place the ability to do so much more without adding staff or overhead. With the advent of electronic net based advertising, it is altogether easier for USPSA to gain revenue than ever before as in the $113K that was generated last year which is all new revenue. It makes sense to at least me to ask ourselves what should we be doing with this revenue.

I do not get why it would make sense to use this new revenue stream to support a larger national championship. Matches should pay their own way as the member sitting home should not see a loss of benefits due to the fact he was not selected to attend the national match. Rolling back membership dues should not be the function of this money in so much as dues are easily affordable to those who can afford the equipment and gear, even basic to participate in this sport. Yes we need to market but as income increases, we should not just grow for the sake of growth. If we want to be THE sport shooting organization we need to focus on that as opposed to just doing more of the same.

Would it not make sense to showcase NROI by giving them a larger mission? How about having NROI train range staff not only on matches centered around USPSA rules but centered around anyone's rules? Safety is not unique to USPSA and we should be able to offer that to everything from skeet and trap to pellet guns. What we call a range officer presently is based on safety and our rules. If we separate the two, our methods of safety training becomes marketable to a wide area of shooting disciplines.

We also know that there is an increasing demand for firearm instructors. At this point in our society, the NRA has this market all but cornered but those of us who are NRA instructors know full well that the materials NRA presents is very dated, as exciting as watching paint dry, and slow to change. NROI has the talent and ability to present a course that is much more exciting and relevant to give USPSA trained instructors the ability to train new shooters. I am not saying we should go head to head against NRA but if all that is ever offered is fried chicken, folks never learn what a hamburger tastes like.

Both of just the two items mentioned above, as well as several others, are services that would easily meet IRS public service standards and in the long run earn us a lot more respect in the shooting world and the world in general than just confining ourselves to our intended purpose. The key to most leadership issues is not being able to supply the correct answers but rather asking the correct questions. And any organization that does re-examine their purpose on a regular basis whether it is USPSA or the local garden club has just limited appeal to a shrinking number of people.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Charles Bond

[BritinUSA]

A Blog with an RSS feed is a simple thing to set up. Members can either view the blog whenever they want or subscribe to the RSS feed which will send them a short email with a link to the full article on the blog. Organizing all the advertisement revenue is the time-consuming part, contacting businesses to offer the service and pulling all the content together can become a significant work-effort, and perhaps that amount of work is why USPSA has elected to work with an outside provider.

I agree that it would be better (and more profitable) to do this within USPSA but perhaps there is not enough headcount in USPSA to work on this at the moment, though perhaps that could change in the future. A couple of years ago USPSA's involvement in social-media was sadly lacking, it seems that we are moving in the right general direction, there is just some disagreement about the best way to keep moving forward.

[Jack Suber]

I think BritinUSA's idea of a blog would be easiest to implement - as a newsletter (perhaps a marketing tool). If I were the one making the call regarding some sort of news letter or tool to get news out to members, I would start by using the USPSA forums. We already have it in place. Its just a matter of using it. The President's forum would be a great forum for announcements. Its just a matter of directing members there - provided we are only looking for a newsletter type tool. If it is marketing, I am not convinced that the newsletter is the way to go. I would be interested to see if there is a way to measure reach to non-USPSA members? On another note, I also think we need to simplify the website to make it easier for non-members to navigate and learn about USPSA.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Jack Suber

[wgnoyes]

My Personal Profile does carry an opt-out option regarding future mailings (see above screen print). I'm not sure why I seem to have different options than some of you, unless it is because I am a USPSA Life member.

That bottom block does appear to be a Life Member only thing. But notice how nothing in the top block (the one all members have) would seem to cover this marketing newsletter.

The opt-out for the email newsletter is at the top and bottom of the email itself, which is where it should be. Click on unsubscribe.

[wgnoyes]

I agree with Bill Noyes 99% of the time but this is one of those situations where I differ. I am rather solid in by conviction that USPSA could and should have done this without resorting to a partnership with an outside vendor. There are plenty of methods that USPSA could have used to publish an on line publication without spamming anyone. How dog on hard is it to run a program where the server sends out batches of 10 emails addressed to 10 members with each batch being 3 minutes a part? ...

Pretty damn hard, actually, and something of a kludge at that. And at that rate, it would take a bit over 2 days to send out 1 email to (the number I've heard tossed around) 30000 email addresses.

There is nothing wrong with using a commercial email marketing service and it solves a great many problems that you would otherwise have trying to do it yourself.

[Chills1994]

mailchimp.com

it has an opt out choice at the bottom of the email.

Did I mention it was free?

And what are these guys getting cents-wise per click?

$113,000, eh?

Sounds like good work if you can get it.