EEC: Good Intentions Gone Bad

Before you read remember this – I like the EEC, I like the things they do, and I like the people involved with running the organization. But this story goes to show even leaders make mistakes from time to time.

It started with an article from the EEC explaining their Earth day exercise, and what their intent was when they were sending these electronic Magazine messages to their members. Ken Magill, then followed up with a post stating that the EEC had spammed its members. Truly a case of “Good Intentions Gone Bad”.

Here is my take on how it should have gone down…

  • It should have been branded EEC, with the Magazine Content in the body of the message.
  • The messages should have been sent “From” for the EEC, not the Zinio system
  • There should not have been three copies, with two different content pieces, if this was a one off mailing.
  • Messages should have been Gender neutral, or better targeted… Women’s Magazines are just not my favorite reading choices. 😉
  • If these are for Earth day and on behalf of the EEC – you should mention that in the content of the message somewhere (see below).
  • While the intentions were good the execution get an “F” – as leaders these things should be checked and double checked before letting the message out the door.

Over at BeRelevant!, Tamara had this to say.

View the messages here:

  1. First message – lacking Personalization (Dear Reader)
  2. Second Message – Same as first (personalized this time), sent 3 hrs after first.
  3. Third Message – New content

Author: Matt V - @emailkarma

Matthew Vernhout is a digital messaging industry veteran and Certified International Privacy Professional (Canada) (CIPP/C) with nearly two decades of experience in email marketing. Matthew is 250ok’s Director of Privacy, and he is currently the Vice Chair of the eec, after serving for several years as the Chair of their Advocacy Subcommittee. Matthew was recognized as the 2019 eec thought-leader of the year.

Share This Post On


  1. Matt –

    I’ve been following this one pretty closely. Ken, Tamara, EEC, Laura, you, various comments, tweets, etc.

    I can see where everyone is coming from. I think your comments and suggestions would have been the closest to the best execution.

    However, my question is simple:

    Why even bother to send that message in the first place?

    dj at bronto

    Post a Reply
  2. Let’s see … the email from VIV said “This message was sent to myemailaddress with your prior permission.”

    Just exactly what “prior permission” did I give and when did I give it?

    This was more than “good intentions gone bad” but rather a very, very, very poor decision by the folks at the eec and credibility was lost.

    They broke every rule in the book from permission to list building methods to outright lies. Today Jeanniey Mullen speaks on privacy and email best practices and she’ll be followed on the program by Louis Farrakhan speaking on tolerance.

    “Innocent mistakes” like this shouldn’t come from the preachers.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.