Tipping Point for Spam?

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 1:29 am (20 years, 11 months ago)

Here's a few quotes from an article just posted on Yahoo! News about the US FTC's three-day forum on "spam."

Eileen Harrington, the Federal Trade Commission's director of marketing practices wrote:

"There is consensus that the problem has reached a tipping point. If there are not immediate improvements implemented across the board by technologists, service providers and perhaps lawmakers, e-mail is at risk of being run into the ground."

Brightmail wrote:

"In March, 45 percent of all e-mail sent was spam, according to Brightmail, the San Francisco-based anti-spam company. That's up from 16 percent in January 2002."

Motohiro Tsuchiya wrote:

"Motohiro Tsuchiya, a communications professor with the International University of Japan, said Friday that about 80 percent of spam in Japan comes from outside the country and most of it is in English."

Quote:

"Virginia enacted the nation's harshest anti-spam law Tuesday, giving authorities the power to seize assets earned from sending bulk unsolicited e-mail pitches while imposing up to five years in prison."

Article: Spam E-Mail Problem Worse Than Imagined

Have a personal opinion on what can or should be done?

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 9:05 am (20 years, 11 months ago)

What can laws do if they are not implemented ?

The problem can only be solved by people who recieve it. If people don't buy stuff from ads sent inside bulk mails, if people don't care to visit the site listed in the mail then why will spammers send spam. Even fools know its useless to run a business which is all loss and no return. If only we stopped ...

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 10:01 am (20 years, 11 months ago)

there's no option on the poll for 5-10 Wink

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 1:46 pm (20 years, 11 months ago)

adam wrote:

there's no option on the poll for 5-10 Wink

I also noticed that but decided to remain quiet

eh Smile

WebHelper Joined: 01 Mar 2003 Posts: 69 Location: Texas

jayant wrote:

The problem can only be solved by people who recieve it. If people don't buy stuff from ads sent inside bulk mails, if people don't care to visit the site listed in the mail then why will spammers send spam. Even fools know its useless to run a business which is all loss and no return. If only we stopped ...

Who do you know that has ever bought something from an unsolicited email? It costs next to nothing to send, and if a fraction of a percent of the people that receive it do anything, they have made their money back. With direct mail (actual mail, not email) it takes only approximately a 3% response rate to break even. So what do you think it is for spam? 0.3%? 0.03%? Less? It costs next to nothing to set up a domain, very little to buy an email list, and essentially a microcent or two to send each email. Simply saying "Don't respond" isn't going to cut it.

To stop the problem, the cost of sending spam is going to have to rise. If that means lawsuits or fines, so be it.

And what really gets me going is the fact that the so-called "legitimate" mass marketers are trying to avoid being lumped into the "spam" category. You know what? If I didn't ask for it, it's spam. I don't care if you've just set up a fly-by-night domain and email broadcast in your garage or you are a fortune 1000 company. If I didn't ask for your email, you have no right to send it to me.

There was an interesting editorial that I read a few days ago that said marketers have to bear the cost of marketing, not the consumer. When I watch free TV, I am "paying" for that privilege by watching commercials. When I watch pay TV, I don't expect to see commercials. Free radio? Paid for with ads. Paid radio (XM or other satelite provider)? Subscription.

How about providers like NetZero? They provide free internet access (or used to) by deluging you with ads. But I pay for my internet service, I pay for my email account, and they have no right to clutter my system, my inbox, and my time with their ****.

Get the idea I don't like spam? Wink

Dave

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 8:20 pm (20 years, 11 months ago)

there's also the fact that many spammers get money by selling their mailing lists to other spammers...it's odd but it works for them. and, many spammers are hired by small companies who don't realise that they're **** people off...either way the spammers don't care what you do with the email they send, so simply not buying their product doesn't make a difference.

Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 8:40 pm (20 years, 11 months ago)

Yes, I totally agree. If I did'nt ask for them to email me, then it is spam, and ALL spammers should be subject to being sued and/or being thrown in jail. Perhaps, their mailing address should be published so they can receive hundreds of spam snail mail mailings Very Happy

Posted: Sun May 04, 2003 2:36 am (20 years, 11 months ago)

jayant wrote:

What can laws do if they are not implemented ?

The problem can only be solved by people who recieve it. If people don't buy stuff from ads sent inside bulk mails, if people don't care to visit the site listed in the mail then why will spammers send spam. Even fools know its useless to run a business which is all loss and no return. If only we stopped ...

I used to share those views, jayant, as it seemed to make sense from a business point of view, but eventually I realized that the points that drathbun and adam make both 'tear' that argument. It's just too easy and too cheap to send bulk mail on the Internet. It removes the traditional business constraints of time and money, and IMO are one of the biggest differences between spam e-mail and 'traditional' postal junk mail.

drathbun wrote:

... unsolicited email? It costs next to nothing to send, and if a fraction of a percent of the people that receive it do anything, they have made their money back. With direct mail (actual mail, not email) it takes only approximately a 3% response rate to break even. So what do you think it is for spam? 0.3%? 0.03%? Less? It costs next to nothing to set up a domain, very little to buy an email list, and essentially a microcent or two to send each email. Simply saying "Don't respond" isn't going to cut it....

adam wrote:

there's also the fact that many spammers get money by selling their mailing lists to other spammers...

This's one of the really bizarre parts of spam that I don't think a lot of people think about or even realize: the fact that all the little businesses subsidiary to it are probably the one's keeping it alive. Maybe even the ones making most of the money?

BTW...

adam wrote:

there's no option on the poll for 5-10 Wink

... if a mod wants to add those, feel free Wink