Hi there,

One thing I’ve really enjoyed about writing these stories is seeing the little decisions that could have gone completely differently.

Because that’s usually where the interesting part is.

So, today’s story starts with something we all know very well:

Spam.

Actual, old-school, “Congratulations! You’ve won a free cruise!” spam.

And a law that marketers were pretty sure was going to make their lives worse.

They were wrong.

Picture 2003.

Your inbox is a war-zone.

Fake lottery wins. Miracle cures. Suspicious business opportunities. A prince who apparently needs your help moving a small fortune.

Spam wasn’t just annoying anymore. It was becoming an infrastructure problem.

So Congress stepped in.

And here’s the strange part:

The Senate voted 97 – 0. The House followed with 392 – 5.

Think about that.

Congress agreeing on something almost unanimously?

In 2003, apparently even spam was enough to bring people together.

The law was called CAN-SPAM.

And one of its simplest rules was also the one marketers didn’t particularly love:

If someone wants to leave your email list, you have to make it easy for them.

• No fee.
• No unnecessary hoops.
• No hiding the exit behind a maze of settings.

Just let them go.

And you can probably guess what marketers worried about.

If leaving becomes easier… won’t more people leave?

They did.

But not necessarily the people you wanted to keep.

Some were old contacts who hadn’t opened an email in months.

Some had signed up once and forgotten why.

Some probably shouldn’t have been on the list in the first place.

And some simply didn’t want your emails anymore.

The unsubscribe button didn’t create that problem.

It revealed it.

That’s the bit I love about this story.

The people who stayed weren’t staying because you made leaving difficult.

They were staying because they still wanted to be there.

And suddenly, a smaller list could actually be a healthier one.

Because what’s the point of having 100,000 subscribers if 40,000 of them are silently wishing you’d stop emailing them?

Did they choose to stay?

We still talk about this today.

Open rates. Clicks. Deliverability. Complaints. List health.

We’re constantly trying to figure out whether people actually want what we’re sending.

And sometimes the simplest signal is the one we don’t want to look at:

Did they choose to stay?

That’s also the thinking behind how Icegram Express handles unsubscribes.

Every campaign comes with a clear way to opt out.

And if someone’s subscribed to multiple lists, they can leave the one they don’t want without necessarily disappearing from everything else.

Because the goal shouldn’t be to make leaving difficult.

The goal should be to make staying worthwhile.

One more thing before I let you go…

That’s what makes this 20-year-old story surprisingly relevant.

We tend to think of rules as restrictions.

This will make my list smaller.
This will cost me subscribers.

But sometimes a restriction forces you to stop optimizing for the wrong number.

A bigger list isn’t always a better list.

A list full of people who choose to hear from you?

That’s something worth building.

And maybe that’s the real lesson from 2003:

An easy exit doesn’t weaken trust.

It’s what makes the choice to stay mean something.

And…

That’s a good place to end this series.

The series officially wraps up next month.

But…

I have one story left.

One that I’ve been saving because it’s too good to throw into the regular schedule just for the sake of having another episode.

So I’m thinking about doing one bonus edition in October. Do you want me to do a bonus episode…?

📌 P.S. If you’d want that, just reply: BONUS. 

The next episode depends on what you want. Will wait for your reply. 

Until next time,