Importance of Permission in Email Marketing

Some consultants and data vendors will tell you that you can send unsolicited spam email at scale without harming your deliverability. A few of them will even claim that doing so can improve your deliverability. They’re lying. Sending unsolicited spam is the single worst thing you can do for your deliverability. But you don’t have to take it from me. Bouncer just asked 12 email deliverability experts what they think will define email deliverability in 2026.  And as it turns out, every serious deliverability expert says the same thing: permission and opt-in consent are absolutely critical to maintaining strong deliverability. Here’s what five deliverability experts had to say: 📣 "If your list isn’t clean, all the sending best practices won’t matter." – Jordie van Rijn, EmailMonday 📣 "The best way to navigate trends is to stick to the classics. For email, that means explicit consent, sending only what people asked for, making it easy to opt out." –  Alison Gootee, Sinch Mailgun 📣 "The biggest mistake senders make is confusing 'valid' with 'safe.' An address can pass every technical check and still behave like a reputation liability. Verification is no longer about preventing bounces. It’s about preventing future filtering." – Radek Kaczyński, CEO of Bouncer 📣 "Lack of segmentation, sending too many emails, unclear opt-in, or poorly acquired contact lists all slowly erode sender trust." - Pierre Pignault, MailSoar 📣 "Do not assume that having all your authentication nuts and list hygiene bolts in order will get you to the inbox… Giving your list a quick scrub won’t compensate for spammy acquisition practices or sending too often to folks who clearly don’t want it." – Lauren Meyer, Send-It-Right The next time a consultant or data vendor claims you can send unsolicited spam without deliverability consequences, ask them why they think they know better than these experts. The link to the full roundup from Bouncer can be found in the comments below.

One of the reasons people in the Caribbean feel like email marketing never works is simple: Most of the businesses emailing us never got our consent. Emails are often pulled from shared databases, old organizational lists, event sign-ups meant for something else, or third-party sources — and then businesses are surprised when engagement is low. So the default reaction when a Caribbean business emails us isn’t interest or curiosity. It’s usually: “How did you get my email?” And once that question enters the room, trust is already gone. Today, I received a marketing email from a business promoting something, and I 100% never subscribed to that business. After checking, it’s clear my email was accessed through an organizational body that legitimately has my email, and then used for third-party marketing. That single action creates a chain reaction: • I’m now questioning the organization that had my data — and whether they’re sharing it with others • I’m ready to unsubscribe from that organization entirely • The business that emailed me gets marked as spam, because I never gave consent and have no interest in what’s being promoted That’s a double whammy: One organization loses trust. One business damages its reputation and email deliverability. When emails are repeatedly marked as spam, inbox providers start automatically filtering future messages — meaning even legitimate emails end up in spam or never get delivered at all. Once that trust is broken, it can take months of clean, consent-based sending to recover visibility in people’s inboxes. And then we all turn around and say, “email marketing doesn’t work in the Caribbean.” It does — but only when it’s built on first-party data and permission. In today’s digital environment — where AI, fraud, and data misuse are everywhere — unsolicited emails don’t just feel annoying. They feel risky. The fix isn’t better subject lines or more emails. It’s capturing your own data from people who actually want to hear from you. When someone chooses to give you their email: - They recognize your name in their inbox - There’s curiosity instead of suspicion - Engagement happens naturally In 2026, if your email list isn’t permission-based, it’s not an asset...it’s a liability. Collect your own data. Respect consent. And let email become something people actually want to receive again.

Alex Lieberman is the only person I know who does this. He asks for permission to add people to his newsletter when they sign up for his webinars. Most founders just auto-add you without asking. Not Alex. I signed up for his webinar on building customer health agents with Tenex, and right there on the registration form was this question. "Can Tenex send you a weekly newsletter with actionable AI playbooks, tools, and insights for founders & execs?" You can say yes or no. Here's what makes this brilliant - look at how he describes the newsletter. He doesn't say "get our weekly newsletter" or "stay updated." He tells you exactly what you'll get. Actionable AI playbooks. Tools. Insights. All for founders and execs. That's the audience he wants. So he tells them upfront what's in it for them. He's filtering his list. Most people obsess over list size. Alex cares about list quality. When someone opts in by choice, they actually want to hear from you. They'll open your emails. They'll engage with your content. The person who gets auto-added and never asked? They'll mark you as spam or ignore you forever. He's building trust before the webinar even starts By asking permission, Alex is showing respect. He's not assuming you want more emails. He's giving you control. That small gesture builds trust. And trust is what turns webinar attendees into customers. If you're running webinars or any kind of opt-in, give people a choice about joining your newsletter. Describe the value clearly. Let them decide. You'll end up with a smaller list. But it will be a list that actually makes you money.

STOP ADDING PEOPLE TO YOUR EMAIL NEWSLETTER OR OTHER EMAIL MARKETING WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION! Sorry, everyone. I don't yell often. It takes quite a bit of nonsense (usually from the same person) before I reach my boiling point. But I am done with people engaging in this unethical practice. Every day I receive email newsletters and other digital marketing materials I never requested or consented to receive. And it's getting old. Sending someone your newsletter without permission can lead to legal and reputational woes. Here's why. - Many countries have anti-spam laws regulating email marketing. Violating them can result in hefty fines and other legal action (especially for repeat offenders). - Unsolicited emails damage your reputation and erode trust with your ideal customers. People who willingly opt-in to receive communications are more likely to interact with your brand. - Sending emails to people who didn't request them increases your spam rating with email servers, which can block future emails from reaching inboxes. Besides all the legal and reputational problems it causes, sending unsolicited emails is just a craptastical thing to do. Please, don't be a doody head. That's it. That's the post.

𝗕𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝗣𝗔: 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 - 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝗣 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗘𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 In its latest annual report for 2025, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (BayLDA) responsible for the private sector sets out its position on what constitutes sufficient proof of consent in digital marketing cases. The BayLDA notes a growing number of complaints about unsolicited marketing emails, particularly where data subjects dispute having given consent. This is especially prevalent in the context of sweepstakes and similar promotional activities, where consent is often collected seamlessly and through third parties. Companies informed the supervisory authority that consent is obtained through the so-called double opt-in procedure, in which the individual gives their consent by clicking on a link that has been sent to them. Data subjects often dispute their participation in the sweepstakes, and in any case deny having given the necessary consent during the registration process. The BayLDA stresses that both the advertising company and the sweepstakes organizer must be able to demonstrate valid consent. Pursuant to Art. 7(1) GDPR, the burden of proof rests with the controller. A table recording the date of the double opt-in, the IP address with a timestamp, and the URL alone is not sufficient. Citing a judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the BayLDA confirms that controllers must be able to produce the full consent form for each individual data subject. A copy of the double opt-in confirmation email may suffice, as the DKIM signature allows verification of the email's authenticity. The supervisory authority therefore recommends that controllers ensure, in advance, that they have a method for documenting consent that is as tamper-proof and fraud-proof as possible. The BayLDA notes, though, that this is not the only acceptable method. Controllers retain discretion in choosing their form of consent documentation, provided consent can be adequately demonstrated. Annual Report (German): https://lnkd.in/dzFYFShW #GDPR #dataprotection #DSGVO

Most companies treat marketing like a megaphone—shouting louder and interrupting more. Yet, the battlefield of business is littered with slogans that never landed and desperate product pitches lost in the media clutter. But the true masters of persuasion and influence? They earn permission from their audience first. Permission is the doorway to trust. Trust is the foundation of loyalty. And loyalty is the only currency that compounds over time. Before you can sell, you must first be invited into the minds and hearts of your clients. Without permission, your outreach is just noise, and your brand is just another forgettable name. Win that permission, and the pipeline takes care of itself. How do you secure permission? ->Play the long game. Share your knowledge and wisdom without expecting immediate rewards. ->Be a connector. Introduce your clients to valuable people in your network so everyone benefits. ->Leverage the power of referrals including those from Alumni. People trust their peers and friends more than any marketing message. So, the next time you set out to sell something to someone, ask yourself: What have you done to earn their permission? #persuader

What if the quietest signal on the internet is also the strongest? For most marketers, a newsletter is a distribution channel. But if you ask a reader, a newsletter is simply permission to show up again. And if you think about how aggressively we protect our attention these days, that permission is massive. We are a culture of the quick scroll. We pause briefly, we double-tap, we move on and forget. But when someone subscribes, they are making a bet on your future thoughts. They are deciding they liked what you said today enough to risk you crowding their inbox next Tuesday. That shifts the burden entirely. It means we have to stop worrying about what content to push out this week, and start focusing on whether we are actually worth their time today. In an era of endless, abundant distribution, attention is the only thing that remains ruthlessly selective. The brands and writers that win aren't the ones who figure out the perfect sending frequency. They are the ones who respect the permission they were given.

🍪🇫🇷 CNIL - Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés has published draft guidelines on using #tracking #pixels in emails, aiming to clarify the legal obligations under the lou GDPR and the French implementation of the ePrivacy Directive. The CNIL confirms that embedding tracking pixels in emails constitutes an operation of storing information on a user’s terminal and thus falls under the rules requiring user consent—except in narrowly defined cases. 📍According to the draft, senders of tracked emails act as data controllers, even when email dispatch is outsourced. Emailing service providers typically qualify as processors, though they may become joint controllers if they use pixel-derived data for their purposes. Consent is required for individual-level tracking to measure open rates, personalise content, segment users, or detect fraud. Exemptions apply only when tracking serves strict security functions (e.g. password reset verification) or when aggregate open rates are collected using non-individualized pixels. The CNIL emphasises that consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. It should be collected at the point of email address collection or via a consent request email containing no tracking elements if it is not feasible. 📍Perhaps most notably, the CNIL seems to stress that even when email content may be legally sent without consent (e.g. transactional messages), the tracking pixel still requires separate opt-in. This reinforces the principle that the surveillance layer of communication must be independently justified, not merely piggyback on lawful messaging. 📍The draft is open for public comment and signals a strong regulatory stance on email tracking practices. Will other DPAs or authorities responsible for enforcing national transpositions of the privacy Directive follow CNIL? #rodo #privacy #marketing

In a decision published on 4 June 2025 (No. 330/2025), the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) took a firm stance on one of the most sensitive aspects of digital marketing: the ability to demonstrate valid #UserConsent (https://lnkd.in/ggcy2WZc). Spoiler alert: if you are still relying on single opt-in for your marketing emails, you may want to rethink your approach. At the centre of the case is a company operating in the online car resale sector. It had been merrily sending promotional emails to users who - at least according to one complaint - had never agreed to such communications. The facts, while not uncommon, are telling. A user reported a steady stream of marketing emails beginning in mid-2023, allegedly without ever having signed up for them. The emails came from various addresses, muddying the waters even further. Attempts by the user to exercise data rights were met with delayed and incomplete replies. The company’s defence rested on registration logs and vague references to consent allegedly gathered by third-party partners. That, the Garante said, simply does not cut it. #consent must be demonstrable, not presumed What truly makes this decision noteworthy is not the modest €45,000 fine imposed, but rather the regulator’s affirmation that double #optin is to be considered a minimum safeguard for proving that consent was freely and knowingly given. The idea is simple: after users submit their #emailaddresses, they must confirm their intent by clicking a link in a follow-up email. Without this second step, the door remains open to accidental registrations, impersonation, and unverifiable consent. According to the Garante, this additional layer is no longer optional, it is the only measure that truly aligns with the obligations under Articles 7 and 24 of the #GDPR, particularly the burden placed on controllers to prove consent was obtained validly, and the broader requirement to adopt appropriate technical and organisational safeguards. Of course, this is not without practical implications. Companies will need to invest in more robust registration and verification systems. They must also ensure that confirmations are stored in a secure, tamper-proof format. And let’s not forget the user experience: the double confirmation process introduces friction, which could deter potential customers and decrease conversion rates. The lesson for businesses is as practical as it is legal. Review your onboarding flows. Reassess your contracts with third-party #DataBrokers. And above all, treat the confirmation email not as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as a necessary step to secure trust and compliance. Because in the post-330/2025 era, if you can’t prove consent beyond a reasonable doubt, you may not have valid consent at all. (to be discussed at our #DataProtection course, NOVA School of Law)

What most marketers are still getting wrong in 2025 👇 I was revisiting Seth Godin's "Permission Marketing" concept recently, and it hit me: Two decades later, and most brands are STILL interrupting rather than connecting. Remember when marketing meant bombarding people with messages they never asked for? TV ads, billboards, cold emails... Seth's revolutionary idea flipped this on its head: Get permission first. Then build relationships. But here's the thing: Even as we've moved to digital, many marketers still operate with an interruption mindset. They've just changed the channel. The real problem? They're focused on short-term gains instead of building long-term assets. Permission marketing operates on a simple principle: → Turn strangers into friends, and friends into customers → Make your marketing anticipated, personal, and relevant → Earn the right to sell by delivering value first I've seen companies triple their conversion rates by simply respecting the permission hierarchy: ✅ Situational permission (like webinar follow-ups) ✅ Brand trust (ongoing attention based on reputation) ✅ Personal relationship (becoming a trusted advisor) ✅ Points systems (loyalty programs that work) ✅ Intravenous permission (auto-refills, subscriptions) And guess what? Email remains the quintessential permission channel. But frequency isn't effectiveness. One relevant message beats daily blasts every time. So many marketers abuse the privilege once they get it. They push too hard, too fast. They spam. They go off-topic. And just like that... permission vanished. The marketers who win today understand that permission is their most valuable asset. It compounds over time. It creates a moat competitors can't easily cross. It's why opt-ins, lead magnets, nurture sequences, and value-first content work so well. So ask yourself: Are you interrupting or connecting? Are you taking or giving value? Are you building permission or burning it? The answers will determine whether your marketing thrives or dies in the attention economy.