If it’s good for you, there must be something wrong!
Young children (and some not-so-young children) often see the world in terms of “good for me = yucky”.
If someone is trying to sell a child on something that’s good for them (like broccoli), their “uh-oh” radar immediately kicks in. One could argue that many North American businesses and politicians share this world view. Take the “death panel” hysteria in the states. God forbid the government force something helpful and beneficial down my throat!
There is a similar vibe currently surrounding Bill-C27 — Canada’s pending anti-spam legislation. Businesses and opposition politicians are voicing their fears that this legislation will be too restrictive to online business. However, as Michael Geist points out in his article of October 5th in the Toronto Star, the provisions of the bill leave few grounds for concern. Business-to-business eMails will be virtually exempt from the legislation. All commercial messaging - where prior permission has been obtained - will also be exempt.
Are these politicians and businesses trying to say that we’d all be better off in a world of “opting-out” after receiving something that we don’t want, rather than being asked if we want it in the first place? Isn’t that tantamount to a pushy school kid grabbing someone’s cookie followed by a smarmy “you don’t mind if I take this?” versus “that cookie looks delicious, may I try a piece?”.
The bottom line here is that for the businesses and politicians in question, it could only help their public image if they are strongly encouraged, ideally by this legislation, to consider and to exercise best practice when it comes to permission- based marketing. But, after all, that would be good for them, so it must be bad!