TOPIC:

We love the feature to automatically import prospects who Contact Us and opt them in automatically when they check the box to be included in the mailing list. However, this doesn't work when we obtain leads from other sources (e.g., Toastmasters.org, social media, events). For example, some new members became members by showing up at a meeting without ever being entered as a prospect or guest first to receive opt-in emails. Hence, we have consent from their membership application, guest forms, third-party subscription services (e.g., Tiny Letter, MailChimp), and/or emails to add them to our mailing lists.

Thus, it seems redundant from the customer's perspective to then also ask them to opt-in, which most have ignored from our experience due to the way the email is sent from This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and appears like irrelevant spam from an unfamiliar address (even when we remind them verbally and by text/email). Aside from opting in on their behalf (upon several prospective members' requests), the only other way that has worked to opt them in is to guide them in-person, which isn't an option for our online club due to never being co-located without physical meetings and living near each other in different countries, ranging from USA to India & Australia.

Hence, can we explore the option of modifying the text in the automatic opt-in email (like how the admin can edit and personalize the New Member Welcome Email) and have it sent from an officer (e.g., President, VPM, VPPR) that the prospect or guest may recognize to avoid filtering or ignoring it as spam? If you poll your members, you'll probably find most agree that prospects and guests ignore the opt-in emails, which are required for legal compliance.

Our request is to align and enhance your existing process with marketing workflows and industry best practices for more adoption that maximizes effective use of users' time. We're open to exploring other ways to get prospective members to opt-in, but the current method doesn't work practically as is for 95% of my 10 clubs and 250 clubs visits in 15 districts and 8 countries.

Since Toastmasters and marketers are taught to tailor their messages for recipients to be receptive to their calls-to-actions, we've noticed that most prospective members ignore the opt-in emails even if they want to subscribe to our mailing list because of the way it's sent, appears, and messaged with its current wording from an automated, not a real, sender. Hence, if the wording for subscribe to the mailing list on the Contact Us form is used in the opt-in email and sent by an officer, it may increase the opt-in rate.

NO NO NO, the people have to enter their request themselves or you have to use the opt-in.
If you want to use another mailing list go ahead. We will not be changing the FTH mail list rules or procedures.
Please stop asking.

Thanks Brian for the clarification. As a newbie, I understand that FreeToastHost (FTH) is free and supported by generous volunteers like the Toastmasters who use this valued resource.

The word "customer" can be replaced by "user" or "member" since the most successful and effective organizations tend to use human-centered design where products are created based on the user's needs and desires for maximizing adoption of what they want. Most of our suggestions are from the users' perspective, so we're simply sharing this feedback on some gaps in hopes of exploring ways to increase adoption of what your team has created using FTH with ideas for user-centric integration that continues to level up the product and stay competitive relative to other options for the community's benefit.

Since it seems nobody else has trouble getting others to opt-in using the FTH for marketing compliance, then can your team share their best practices for us to emulate or refer us to contact clubs who have no issues with opting in prospects and guests who barely have a relationship with the club to click what is perceived to be spam-like emails from This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.? This would help clubs convert more members and comply with regulations.

I split this off into its own topic thread. Please keep each topic to its own topic thread.

Just so that we are clear, Brian and I and the other support team members have beat this opt-in topic up over and over many times. There have been reviews of applicable regulations by professionals (& TM WHQ), and we have considered many different approaches. What we have now is a "best case compromise", all things considered.

1. Everyone needs to opt-in to the website system one way or another. We need to have basic information in our system database that indicates when they opted-in and demonstrates that they actually did so.

2. The applicable regulations define roles. The clubs have a role that is different than the one we have. (We are essentially a data "processor".) We cannot ensure that clubs are fulfilling their roles correctly--we can only ensure that we fulfill our role. This is why it is not sufficient for the clubs to just use their opt-in processes in lieu of ours. Clubs/districts should have their appropriate opt-in processes, but the FTH system still needs to have its own opt-in process. Also, we need to control the verbiage that is most relevant to us and the FTH system. Clubs sometimes like to pretend that the FTH system is not really there behind the scenes providing the underpinnings of their website, but in reality, they can only go so far with that--FTH is there behind the scenes, and we must ensure that every user follows the rules of its use and does not cause a problem for the system as a whole.

3. You need to trust that we have done our homework on this--Brian, in particular, has read up on this quite a bit. We get this whole opt-in thing brought up periodically by people that have not done their homework, have not reviewed and discussed this as much as we have, and yet think they know better than us. It is certainly possible that we have missed something or unaware of a new regulatory wrinkle, but do not discount all the investigation we already have done in in the past.

4. To be clear, we really were not that enthusiastic about adding the opt-in functionality in the past--we were essentially forced into it by the changing data privacy regulatory landscape. We knew opt-in would be cause for a lot of push back. If you had the chance to read some of the initial posts when we implemented it, you would have seen that. However, part of what we do is to implement functionality that is not just what users want, but also what is needed to keep the system viable and usable for all users, not just the ones that are the most vocal.