Deceptive Subject Lines

Three recent laws (Washington, California and Maryland) are going to see Email Marketers rethinking their subject lines. While they vary somewhat in application, all three laws will inspire class action lawsuits for deceptive subject lines.  In Washington State, the penalty is $500 per email to a Washington State resident. Similarly, $500 per email for Maryland residents and $1,000 per email for California residents.  

There are some nuances (it's a little harder file in Maryland, California adds a twist to make it more difficult to get the case thrown out - but also caps the penalties at $1m per suit) but it all boils down to: does the subject line contain a provable falsehood? Doesn't matter if there's a caveat or legal disclaimer in the body of the email, does the subject line by itself contain a falsehood?

The examples fall into seven main categories:

1. Your subject line implies eligibility or pre-qualification

You claim “You qualify for…” or “You’re eligible for…” or “Reserved for you” but you haven't actually determined their eligibility or everyone qualifies. 

2. Your subject line says it's free but it's not

Your subject line suggests there's no cost, but there is a cost or other strings attached. It's not truly free. ("Free with purchase" is a big one.)

3. Your subject line promises savings or discount that might not be available

You tell readers they can “Save 25%” but the email says most won't qualify or you say “biggest savings of the year” when there's evidence of larger sales in the past year. It's ok to be vague, but if you make a claim, the claim must be accurate and it must be available to all.

4. Your subject line implies a deadline or urgency 

Your subject line says “Ends tomorrow” or “Last chance” or “Final hours” but it's not the last chance - the deal is honored after the indicated deadline or it was quietly extended or the aforementioned deadline mentioned doesn't apply to all recipients or website visitors. 

This is easy to prove by simply witnessing the deal still exists after the deadline.

5. Your subject line implies scarcity

Your subject line says “Only a few left” or “Limited quantities” or “Selling out fast” but the ofer is digital (unlimited) or you don't actually know how much inventory remains (or you know there's lots of inventory left).

For physical goods, it may be more of a challenge to prove without access to inventory or without monitoring the website over a sustained period of time to show continued availability.

6. Your subject line lies or makes a claim that isn't proven or misleads the reader

Your subject line says you're the "best" or "most popular" (compared to your peers) or suggests a ranking that doesn't actually exist. 

Your subject line suggests the email was supposed to be an internal email that was accidentally sent to subscribers.

Your subject line implies an error, correction, apology or retraction when you didn't actually make a previous public error.

7. Your subject line implies personalization or makes the reader think it's transactional when it's not

Note: This is more specific to California or nationwide via CAN-SPAM, but it's good to keep in mind. 

Your subject line suggests that the email is a "Re:" (reply) or "Fw:"/"Fwd:" (forward) when it's just a marketing email.

Your subject line makes the reader think it's a receipt or transactional message but it's just a promotional message.

Your subject line makes the reader think it's in service to their account or membership but is actually just a promotional message.

To sum... don't be a deceptive marketer. People who feel misled vote with the "unsubscribe" or "this is spam" button. Build a long-term relationship with your readers, don't try to get one over on them. It's not clever, it's frustrating and we see you. 

AI helped me with the research on this article and AI created the image inspired by Parks & Recreation.

120: Block Party Prison Fundraiser Timid Efficient Punishment

 Getting started: https://www.dylandrakes.com/writing-prompts and https://www.name-generator.org.uk/ 

• Genre: Crime/Prison
• Location: Block Party 
• Conflict: Having to Punish Someone
• Occupation: Fundraiser
• Positive Trait: Efficient
• Negative Trait: Timid
• First1 (Pro): Nadia
• First2 (Ant): Max

Two minutes on the clock... and go.

The block party had been a success. Well, it was sort of almost still a success. Only Max had apparently convinced half of the businesses to contribute to a non-existent fundraiser. And it had been going so well. It was well-attended, lots of families, lots of kids, lots of people lined up at the booths. The air smelled of popcorn and cotton candy, but also so many food trucks. And maybe even a little bit of exhaust from all their rumbling generators, but that was food trucks for you.

Nadia seethed. This was going to make her look bad. To hear the shopkeepers tell it, the story was simple and Max was so believable. And he was her co-chair for the event, so if a fundraiser was part of the festivities, why not chip in? 

She wanted to march right up to him and... well, she didn't know. She fantasized all kinds of violence, but, she wouldn't. She couldn't. But what could she do? She needed to confront him. He didn't know it yet, but he'd been found out and this was going to land him back in prison.

Grrr! She stamped her feet, now angry at herself for her inability to just confront him. To stick her finger right in his face and tell him what a bad thing he'd done. But instead, she felt weak and wanted to run to her car and hide and hope that the shopkeepers took the justice into their own hands.

And now, an AI:

The sun beat down on the pavement of Block C, where the "Block Party" was less about burgers and more about survival. Nadia, the yard’s most efficient fundraiser, clutched her ledger. She didn’t deal in contraband; she managed the protection pool, ensuring every inmate’s "subscription" was paid to the Shot Caller.

Nadia was valued for her math, but cursed by her timid nature. Her hands shook as she approached Max, a brute who had spent his commissary budget on tattoos instead of his weekly dues.

"Max," she whispered, her voice cracking. "You’re short. The bosses... they noticed."

Max laughed, leaning against the chain-link fence. "What are you going to do, Nadia? File a complaint? You’re a bean-counter, not a hitter."

The yard went silent. Nadia felt the cold gaze of the guards and the even colder stare of the syndicate leaders by the bleachers. She had been given a direct order: No exceptions. To maintain the system she had so carefully organized, she had to punish the deficit.

She didn't use a blade. She simply signaled the kitchen crew. By dinner, Max’s "protected" status was officially revoked. As the heavy hitters moved in to reclaim his bunk and his dignity, Nadia looked away, her heart hammering against her ribs. She had balanced the books with ruthless precision, but the cost was a weight her quiet soul wasn't built to carry.

And the AI's thoughts...

For next time, it suggested I:

• More Show, Less Tell (I'll probably continue to get this for awhile)
• Sharpen Verbs
• Deeper POV and Tigher Conflict for Timidity
• Sensory Contrast (perhaps the sweet cotton candy smell vs the sour feeling of betrayal).

I didn't ask for feedback last time, but I did notice how last time the AI had more sensory (especially smell) than mine, so that was one of the things I tried to improve upon this time.

I also overused "lots" and there was some structure I wish was better. Part of that might just be the nature of the short time-frame and the inability to go back and add or change anything.

Social Hacking

 I was reading this book that took place well in the future, but the ?gonist (don't know yet if he's good or bad) called up a new employee, said he was from HR and told them that they hadn't finished their compliance training. They weren't going to be able to issue paychecks until the training was completed.  Most likely it was a small thing - at the very end, there's a "submit" button that lot of people miss.

So while he on the phone with the employee, directed him to a website, had him sign in, click the "submit" button and then they were all good.

Except the website was fake and now our main character had this new employee's username and password.

Made me realize...

If you think someone might be performing social engineering against you, if you're directed to a site in a scenario like this, always enter your password wrong the first time. If the site accepts it, you've just prevented yourself from being hacked.

Conversely, if you build websites like this to hack people, always make it reject the first password attempt and make them try again. That will catch people who follow my earlier advice (and because people type their passwords wrong accidentally all the time), and for people who did type it right, now you have the correct password submitted twice and you can be much more assured that you have a good exploit.