More on Spam

"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
> What I am more interested in is measurable statistics
> on the efficacy of advertising via email. Espescially
> with regard to how targeted the original mailing list
> was.

As the saying goes...

Statistics, damn statistics, and lies.

Whenever given a statistic, check its source and who paid for the work.
Keep in mind how statistics can easily be manipulated to fit one's agenda.
Who did the polling? Who paid for it? Who did they poll? How were they
selected? What questions were they asked? Were the questions
leading/biased? What's the group's position on spam? And you should keep
all this in mind whether the source is anti-spam or pro-spam. I cannot
think of any that are truly impartial.

Scott Jensen
--
Peer-to-peer networking (a.k.a. file-sharing) is entertainment's future.
If you'd like to know why, read the white paper at the link below.
http://www.scottjensenshow.com/P2PRevolution.pdf

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cioeg702no2@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> As has been obvious in this and the previous thread on the topic of
> spam, it is a highly charged subject.
>
> I suggest that both sides have valid points in the debate (as
> represented by my moderator colleagues Jim and Scott).
>
> On the anti-spam side, however, the emotions seem to run much higher and
> anyone who doesn't share their strong opposition is labelled "pro-spam."

Well, no. Only those who spam and promote spamming are labled pro-spam in
any of these threads that I can see.

> But let's look at the two prime arguments made by the anti-spam lobby:
>
> 1. It is illegal/against the TOS of ISPs
> This is offered up as the trump-card of arguments, as if it defeats all
> others. And I can even agree that the statement is partially/largely
> true (so there's no need to parse the details!). But let's get serious
> here: there are lots of things that are against the law, yet done by
> many -- if not most -- people.

And that matters exactly how? What are these other activities you think
everyone does that makes spamming somehow OK?

> The point being that something being against the law (or a contract) in
> and of itself does not really establish the merit (or lack thereof) of a
> subject.

Subject? We're discussing an unethical and in many cases illegal activity
being promoted as OK to do by one of the moderators of this group. It's not
the subject being discussed, it's the act itself.

Even if all involved stipulate to its illegality, the practice
> can still continue unabated.
>
> Like spam.
>
> 2. Spam is immoral/unethical because it places costs or burdens on the
> unwilling recipients.
> Once again, let's say this is true.

Why just say it. It is and has been proven to be true. Trying to dismiss it
as maybe true doesn't change the facts.

> But as has been pointed out, it is
> true for other means of marketing as well.

No other means of marketing directly shifts the costs from the sender to the
recipient. All other forms of marketing have significant costs to the sender
which limits the costs to the recipient.

> Direct and indirect costs
> could be calculated for many -- if not most -- means of marketing.

None will compare to the virtual 100% cost to the recipient of spam.

> Yet
> those forms of marketing continue to exist and flourish despite this
> reality.

Because the costs of those to the sender limits the costs to the recipient,
unlike spam.

>
> In fact, just about all marketing pisses someone off. (If it doesn't,
> you're probably not trying hard enough to grow your business!) Since it
> is almost always unwanted, the best you can really hope for is for your
> marketing efforts to be tolerated.

Those unwanted communications are not illegal and do not place a burden on
the recipient so far greater than the sender as is the case with spam.

>
> And a lot of long-established marketing techniques have a) significant
> costs involved and b) a major irritation factor. Take cold-calls to
> businesses as just one example -- they are way more irritating and time-
> consuming (therefore expensive) than spam as far as I am concerned.

The time costs to the caller limits the burden on the recipient. One
cold-caller can't call one million people and use up their resources. The
cold-calls are not collect, as is the case with spam where the recipient is
paying for the message.

>
> So, since there's a good chance I've already been labelled a pro-spammer
> by the anti-spammers,

No, I would just label you ignorant of the workings of the Internet which is
why you attempt to compare spam to things that have zero to do with spam.

> let me point out why spam is here to stay whether
> people like it or not:
>
> 1. It is very cheap for the senders and therefore relatively easy to
> justify.

Justify? It's easy to put a quarter in the newspaper box and take a stack of
papers. Can you justify that theft? Just becase something is easy to do,
doesn't make it right.

> A very tiny response rate can make it profitable for the advertiser, and
> even if it is not profitable, advertisers without much money will try it
> with a "not much to lose" attitude. As long as there is any result
> generated, some marketers will continue to use it.

Some criminals will continue their petty theft as well because they feel
that their theft is insignificant.
"The great economist Ronald Coase won a Nobel Prize talking about exactly
this kind of situation. He said that it is particularly dangerous for the
free market when an inefficient business (one that can't bear the costs of
its own activities) distributes its costs across a greater and greater
numbers of victims. What makes this situation so dangerous is that when
millions of people only suffer a small amount of damage, it is often more
costly for the victims to go out and hire lawyers to recover the few bucks
in damages they suffer. That population will likely continue to bear those
unnecessary and detrimental costs unless and until their individual damage
becomes so great that those costs outweigh the transaction costs of uniting
and fighting back. And the spammers are counting on that: they hope that if
they steal only a tiny bit from millions of people, very few people will
bother to fight back. "
http://cauce.ca/about.html


>
> This is not an endorsement, just a statement of fact. Which is what I
> believe Scott was also trying to state in some of his posts.

He also stated that he has used spam and continues to encourange spamming.

>
> 2. An anti-spam industry now exists and needs spam to justify its
> continued existense.

So? There are burglar alarm companies. They don't encourage burglary even
though if the crime ceased to exist they would be out of business.

> This parallels the computer virus situation: I think all can agree that
> viruses have no positives whatsoever attached to them, yet they continue
> to exist (and I hope making that statement does not get me labelled a
> virus supporter!).

No, but you still make no point WRT spam.

>
> However, there are numerous large companies -- like Symantec (Norton
> Antivirus) and McAfee -- that DEPEND on the continued existence of virus
> attacks for their profits.

So? Do they encourage them? No.

>
> This has now happened with spam. A LOT of people and companies make many
> millions of dollars in the "fight against spam."

Name one company making millions from the fight against spam.

This symbiotic
> relationship tends to ensure the continued existence of both sides of the
> battle.

No, there is no symbiotic relationship anymore than there is between the
police and criminals.

>
> 3. The result of the above point is that spam is becoming less
> irritating to the average recipient.
> My spam filter catches well over 95% of the 200-300 spam e-mails I
> receive daily. So, the reality of the situation is that it no longer
> bothers me much...not like a few years ago when I had to deal with it
> all myself. And, of course, the fact that I don't even SEE it anymore
> makes it less likely than ever to have any effectiveness whatsoever.

That contradicts your statement above that spam is unlikely to go away. The
fact that you no longer see the theft of your services doesn't mean it isn't
happening. Go on vacation. If your spam filters are on your computer, as is
the case with most user filters, your ISP provided mailbox may be full and
your legit email is now rejected because the spam you don't see has taken up
your allowed space.

>
> Because this allows those who are most irritated with spam to reduce
> that irritation, it will also reduce the number of people fighting
> vehemently against it.

No, those vehemently fighting against it do not filter because they know
that is doing the spammer a favor and helping to protect the spammer by not
complaining to their ISP.

>
> Finally, just in case any of the militant anti-spammers are still
> reading, here are the reasons why advertisers should NOT use spam:
>
> 1. First and foremost, it will get you a great deal of hate.

Interesting you think #1 is the reaction to spam, not the fact that it is
unethical.

> As you can tell by the reactions here among people supposedly interested
> in marketing, there will be a lot of abuse heaped on you if you spam.

Abuse? Is it now abuse to complain about unethical practices or illegal
activity?

> 2. Potential hassles.
> There is a potential for hassles with your ISP, legal or regulatory
> problems, and retaliatory attacks or threats from the more irrational
> anti-spammers.

Victims of crime are known to react violently to criminals who steal from
them.

>
> 3. Weak results.
> Since the vast majority of spam is poorly done and even more poorly
> targeted to an appropriate audience, and better filters are allowing
> ever more people to avoid seeing it altogether, it is going to get
> harder than ever to generate profit from spamming.

Most spammers make their money from the suckers who pay them to spam for
them.

>
> Ultimately THIS IS THE PRIMARY METHOD OF REDUCING IT. If advertisers
> can't make a profit, they will stop using this method.

This also conflicts with your previous statement as to why spam will not go
away.

>
> Again, without trying to put a value judgement on it either way, this is
> the reality of marketing: if it makes money for the advertisers, odds
> are that it will continue. If it doesn't, it will stop.

It's a shame you can't make a value judgement on something so obviously
unethical.

>
> When anti-spammers lash out against anyone who is not as vehemently
> opposed to spam as they are, they often come across as emotional and
> somewhat out of touch with the reality of why spam continues and how
> marketing decisions are made. To them, I would strongly recommend
> applying some good marketing concepts and telling those you want to
> influence WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM if they change their ways.

It's too bad that just doing the right thing and behaving ethically is not
enough incentive for some people.

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:cioejk0a41@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > >> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > >> > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
> > >>
> > >> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
> > >> brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
> > >> mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
> > >> increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
> > >> forced unwanted upon that audience.
> > >
> > > Try junk mail.
> >
> > It's not relevant: In the U.S. the U.S. Postal service is the only
> > entity allowed to place mail into your mailbox. You can file form
> > 1500 (see http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html#form for
> > details) to stop unwanted mail. Please please read that web page.
> > If a mailing is received that is a violation of the 1500 request, it
> > may be submitted to the Postal Service for possible enforcement
> > action.
>
> That ONLY applies to ***ually oriented material. "Please please" before
you
> tell me to read your links, YOU should read your own links in their
entirety
> and those links they link to. At the TOP of Form 1500
> (http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf) is this statement:
>
> "If you are receiving unwanted ***ually oriented advertisements coming
> through the mail to your home or business..."

And only the recipient gets to make that determination. If you say a piece
of mail you have opened is offensive, the postmaster is obligated to accept
your Form 1500. They do not have the option of examining the material and
rejecting your Form 1500.

>
> > The same is NOT true of e-mail. Many entities are allowed to
> > directly place e-mail into your e-mail account. There is no
> > equivalent to form 1500 and no central enforcement authority.
> >
> > So your "garbage" argument is hollow.
>
> Since your "1500" argument doesn't stand up as I've shown above, it is
what
> is hollow.

No, your comparisons to postal mail are still hollow as the cost burden on
the sender outweighs the costs on the recipients, unlike spam which has
virtually zero cost to the sender.

> >
> > Your point is...? That one set of amoral (or immoral) actions
> > excuses another?
>
> Are you actually saying cold calls are amoral and/or immoral?

No, we're talking about spam. Pay attention.

"Spam is based on theft of service, fraud and deceit as well as cost
shifting to the recipient. The great preponderance of products and services
marketed by UCE are of dubious legality. Any business that depends on
stealing from its customers, preying on the innocent, and abusing the open
standards of the Internet is -- and should be -- doomed to failure. "
http://cauce.ca/about.html

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote in message
news:cioej90a3q@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Really, I didn't want this to devolve to a religious argument about
> whether
> or not you find spam to be morally palatable. Ask a thousand people, they
> will have a thousand answers, just like any religious topic.
>
> What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy of
> advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
> original
> mailing list was.

Patrick,

I've been in the business computer technology, at many different levels,
since the Apple ][, and I was in business for myself for some years before
those things ever even came out. I've seen the whole rise of this
Internet/email thing and, I'd like to think, have contributed to the advent
modern technology.

I've *never* heard a valid success story re. email spamming, and given the
lack of "on topic" response you've gotten to your email, I don't think
anybody knows of anyone who's had any success either. The only people who
have ever made any money are those who write the software, provide the
servers, or collect and sell the email lists.

Sure, if you send out ten million spam ads, twice a week, to anyone and
everyone who's email address has ever been harvested off the Internet,
you're bound to find some idiot willing to punch their credit card number
into some web page to "buy Viagra without a prescription."

Bottom line: spam is a something for nothing proposition. People fool
themselves into thinking that they are smart enough to earn a lot of money
with their "idea", without having to put in a lot of work. They're wrong. It
just doesn't work that way.

Now, you talk about "targeting" your spam. Still, I believe, the answer is
no. Spam is spam.

If you have a product or service you want to sell, I suggest posting some
details of what you have to offer to this group, and asking what it is you
might be able to do to start or improve sales.

Mike

"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
> What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy
> of advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
> original mailing list was.

I found two links with numbers, explained below.

But first I'd also like to do an unscientific survey of the readers:

(1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an unsolicited
commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or actually bought
a product or service in response to that e-mail?

(2) Same as (1), but substitute postal mail for e-mail.

(3) Same as (1), but substitute telemarketing call for e-mail.

Now here's the alleged numbers I could find on the net:

"The usual click-through rate (the percentage of recipients who follow the
links on the email) is 4 to 5 percent," [1]

That was a little over a year and a half ago - the author is head of
Commtouch, an anti-spam outfit. The percentage is astronomical - so much so
that the numbers are probably bogus (or they are counting automatic image
downloads that occur when people open their e-mail - hardly a voluntary
"click through"). Some other less appealing numbers from Commtouch:

"Spam is costing enterprises and economies billions of dollars every year.
The more than 15 billion spam messages sent every day cost European
businesses an estimated $2.5 billion and US corporations $10 billion in
2003.

By January 2004, enterprise users were already reporting dramatic
increases over previous years, complaining that more than 50% of their
average daily incoming mail was spam. Others have suggested the figure is
closer to 80%." [2]

However, the click-through rate is too high to be believed and casts
serious doubt on all of Commtouch's published numbers.

You'll find lots of Google hits on the phrase "spam is effective" or the
words "effective" "spam" "marketing" but concrete numbers are few. Most
just assume it must be effective because they reason: what else would
motivate so much of it if it wasn't effective? Well, by that logic playing
the multi-million dollar lotteries must be an effective way for people to
make money - how else could one explain the millions people pour into it?
Specious reasoning.

One survey[3] asked people "How do you feel about Spam and Unsolicited
Commercial E-Mail?" Check the link to read several hundred comments. Feel
free to try and find the positive responses and count them.

Getting back to outrageous numbers, "Although Internet users frequently
complain about receiving unsolicited email advertisements, 14 percent of
consumers in an Ernst & Young survey said they will actually go to a site
listed in a spam email. While it is not clear whether it is out of anger or
interest, users click on email advertisements 3 to 10 times more often than
they click on banners." [4]

This was reported back in 2000. Spam has been rising exponentially[5] and
if I take the alleged Feb. 2003 figures of 5% and the Mar. 2000 figures of
14%, then I get ~3% now. Do you believe that 3% of e-mail recipients are
responding positively to e-mail these days? Or at all? I sure don't!

Anyway, that is what a quick search found. Two citations with numbers.

[1] http://www.commtouch.com/coverage/030222_SpamWars.pdf

[2] http://www.commtouch.com/documents/C...te%20Paper.pdf

[3] http://www.survey.net/spam1c.html

[4] http://www.webmetro.com/news1detail1.asp?id=58

[5]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...&sel=TOC_3909&

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote

> Anyone connected to a
> high speed DSL or cable modem who doesn't have a router/firewall, even if
> they only have one computer, is asking for trouble.

Is there actually a difference between a router and a firewall? It seems to
me that just about every modern router out there now-days would do the trick
as a firewall.

> (I don't believe in
> software firewalls since the attack has to reach the PC for those to
> work.)

Hardware firewalls help keep malicious people and programs on the outside
out of your systems. On the other hand, software firewalls, like Zone Alarm,
have the ability to keep malicious programs already on your computer from
communicating out. I'm sure that you're diligent in terms of what you
download and install on your computer, but many other people are not.

So, you, personally, may not need it, but I always recommend the use of both
software and hardware firewalls on online business systems.

Mike

Wow, Jim! That's great research. You make me feel lazy for giving up on the
first page of google results. ;-)

To answer your first, personal-response, question, the answer is yes. I am
the head of product development at the company where I currently work (until
I get my own company off the ground). I get over 400 unsolicited emails a
day, and I use a Bayesian spam filter to get rid of most of these. I usually
only have to go through 10 or so spams a day.

I have personal qualms about ever buying anything from spam. However, just
four months ago, I received a spam from a company that made hardware
specifically designed for use with our type of software. I was in the
process of evaluating new hardware vendors and chose to look at this company
as well. Now we are in negotiations with this company to give them business
that will amount to close to 60% of their annual sales. I told everyone in
the company that I didn't want to call them because they spammed me. ...but
their website looked good, so I wound up calling them. And, for them, spam
has payed off significantly.

That's the only time I have ever bought something from spam. Recently, I
started looking at some of the spam I get here at home and most of it is
just nonsense. I mean, they really aren't trying to sell me anything, it is
just random words with a funky looking link. I don't even understand that.

Personally, what I was considering is using spam as a "softener" before a
cold call. Almost like I would use a post card. It would be targeted
specifically at companies that I intended to call later that week. The spam
wouldn't be nonsense with weird words in it. It would say specifically who I
was, what I did, and what I wanted to offer them. Maybe it is a bad idea, I
don't know.

What I am doing probably wouldn't qualify as "bulk" of course. I mean, it's
just electrons, how much could it possibly weigh? :-P



--
--
Patrick
www.covot.com
small business tools
"Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
>> What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy
>> of advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
>> original mailing list was.
>
> I found two links with numbers, explained below.
>
> But first I'd also like to do an unscientific survey of the readers:
>
> (1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an unsolicited
> commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or actually bought
> a product or service in response to that e-mail?
>
> (2) Same as (1), but substitute postal mail for e-mail.
>
> (3) Same as (1), but substitute telemarketing call for e-mail.
>
> Now here's the alleged numbers I could find on the net:
>
> "The usual click-through rate (the percentage of recipients who follow the
> links on the email) is 4 to 5 percent," [1]
>
> That was a little over a year and a half ago - the author is head of
> Commtouch, an anti-spam outfit. The percentage is astronomical - so much
> so
> that the numbers are probably bogus (or they are counting automatic image
> downloads that occur when people open their e-mail - hardly a voluntary
> "click through"). Some other less appealing numbers from Commtouch:
>
> "Spam is costing enterprises and economies billions of dollars every year.
> The more than 15 billion spam messages sent every day cost European
> businesses an estimated $2.5 billion and US corporations $10 billion in
> 2003.
>
> By January 2004, enterprise users were already reporting dramatic
> increases over previous years, complaining that more than 50% of their
> average daily incoming mail was spam. Others have suggested the figure is
> closer to 80%." [2]
>
> However, the click-through rate is too high to be believed and casts
> serious doubt on all of Commtouch's published numbers.
>
> You'll find lots of Google hits on the phrase "spam is effective" or the
> words "effective" "spam" "marketing" but concrete numbers are few. Most
> just assume it must be effective because they reason: what else would
> motivate so much of it if it wasn't effective? Well, by that logic playing
> the multi-million dollar lotteries must be an effective way for people to
> make money - how else could one explain the millions people pour into it?
> Specious reasoning.
>
> One survey[3] asked people "How do you feel about Spam and Unsolicited
> Commercial E-Mail?" Check the link to read several hundred comments. Feel
> free to try and find the positive responses and count them.
>
> Getting back to outrageous numbers, "Although Internet users frequently
> complain about receiving unsolicited email advertisements, 14 percent of
> consumers in an Ernst & Young survey said they will actually go to a site
> listed in a spam email. While it is not clear whether it is out of anger
> or
> interest, users click on email advertisements 3 to 10 times more often
> than
> they click on banners." [4]
>
> This was reported back in 2000. Spam has been rising exponentially[5] and
> if I take the alleged Feb. 2003 figures of 5% and the Mar. 2000 figures of
> 14%, then I get ~3% now. Do you believe that 3% of e-mail recipients are
> responding positively to e-mail these days? Or at all? I sure don't!
>
> Anyway, that is what a quick search found. Two citations with numbers.
>
> [1] http://www.commtouch.com/coverage/030222_SpamWars.pdf
>
> [2] http://www.commtouch.com/documents/C...te%20Paper.pdf
>
> [3] http://www.survey.net/spam1c.html
>
> [4] http://www.webmetro.com/news1detail1.asp?id=58
>
> [5]
>
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...&sel=TOC_3909&
>

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > > >> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >> > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
> > > >>
> > > >> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
> > > >> brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
> > > >> mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
> > > >> increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
> > > >> forced unwanted upon that audience.
> > > >
> > > > Try junk mail.
> > >
> > > It's not relevant: In the U.S. the U.S. Postal service is the only
> > > entity allowed to place mail into your mailbox. You can file form
> > > 1500 (see http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html#form for
> > > details) to stop unwanted mail. Please please read that web page.
> > > If a mailing is received that is a violation of the 1500 request, it
> > > may be submitted to the Postal Service for possible enforcement
> > > action.
> >
> > That ONLY applies to ***ually oriented material. "Please please"
> > before you tell me to read your links, YOU should read your own
> > links in their entirety and those links they link to. At the TOP of
> > Form 1500
> > (http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf) is this statement:
> >
> > "If you are receiving unwanted ***ually oriented advertisements
> > coming through the mail to your home or business..."
>
> And only the recipient gets to make that determination. If you say
> a piece of mail you have opened is offensive, the postmaster is
> obligated to accept your Form 1500. They do not have the option
> of examining the material and rejecting your Form 1500.

First, such action doesn't mean anything. Nothing. All it means is that a
postal employee cannot refuse to take the form by examining what you
consider to be ***ually oriented material at the time you hand in the form
as to determine whether to accept or reject the form, but means nothing
beyond that. The supposed ***ually oriented material will just be later
evaluated by community standards ... NOT yours ... and if the postmaster
does not agree that it is ***ually oriented, your complaint will be trashed.

Second, repeated misuse of the Form 1500 can and has been dealt with in two
ways by the USPS:

1) They'll just continue to trash all the complaints you register against a
junk mailer that they have already determine is not someone that sends out
***ually oriented material. They'll eventually develop a file on you, any
1500 complaint by you will be red flagged, they'll see that it is against
your local supermarket again for sending you a coupon booklet for soups, and
trash your complaint ... and likely without ever opening the mail in
question since they've already determined you're just a crank.

2) They may eventually get tired of you constantly wasting their time and
request you stop such activity. If you continue, they may view such
activity by you as harassment by you of the sender(s), illegal misuse of
government resources, and YOU could be charged with both crimes. They will
then turn the matter over to their regional USPS law department and they'll
seek a federal DA to charge you with both crimes. When the sender finds out
that you have been trying to harass them, they can ... either before,
during, or after the criminal proceedings (though normally they wait for a
guilty verdict so it is an assured slam-dunk for them) ... hit you with a
civil lawsuit for harassment. And let me be very clear here. What you're
advocating is criminal activity. Oh, and any misguided person that posts
such "advice" on the internet (be it on a webpage or newsgroup) could also
be viewed as advocating such criminal activity and could end up being hit
with criminal and civil lawsuits. All it takes is the defendant (a.k.a.
harassing individual) to say where they got the idea and ... PRESTO! ... the
person advocating it could get criminal and civil lawsuits slapped against
them.

> > > Your point is...? That one set of amoral (or immoral) actions
> > > excuses another?
> >
> > Are you actually saying cold calls are amoral and/or immoral?
>
> No, we're talking about spam. Pay attention.

How about you actually read my replies in their entirety before you spout
off yours? Jim already said this and I replied. Or to put it into your own
words: Pay attention.

> "Spam is based on theft of service, fraud and deceit as well
> as cost shifting to the recipient. The great preponderance of
> products and services marketed by UCE are of dubious
> legality. Any business that depends on stealing from its
> customers, preying on the innocent, and abusing the open
> standards of the Internet is -- and should be -- doomed to
> failure. " http://cauce.ca/about.html

This is just an opinion and nothing more.

Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cir52f09fi@enews4.newsguy.com:

> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cioeg702no2@enews2.newsguy.com...

[Much irrelevant parsing of words snipped.]

>> 2. Spam is immoral/unethical because it places costs or burdens on
>> the unwilling recipients.
>> Once again, let's say this is true.
>
> Why just say it. It is and has been proven to be true. Trying to
> dismiss it as maybe true doesn't change the facts.

Calling something fact doesn't make it fact. And I'm afraid you simply
saying so doesn't have much influence on my opinion.

>> But as has been pointed out, it is
>> true for other means of marketing as well.
>
> No other means of marketing directly shifts the costs from the sender
> to the recipient. All other forms of marketing have significant costs
> to the sender which limits the costs to the recipient.

So what? Just because spam is cheaper for the sender, that should carry
an extra penalty? Sure it lowers the barriers to entry, but that in and
of itself does not prove anything else.

>> Direct and indirect costs
>> could be calculated for many -- if not most -- means of marketing.
>
> None will compare to the virtual 100% cost to the recipient of spam.
>
>> Yet
>> those forms of marketing continue to exist and flourish despite this
>> reality.
>
> Because the costs of those to the sender limits the costs to the
> recipient, unlike spam.

The cost to the sender is not the cause of the cost to the recipient.

[More snips]

>> And a lot of long-established marketing techniques have a)
>> significant costs involved and b) a major irritation factor. Take
>> cold-calls to businesses as just one example -- they are way more
>> irritating and time- consuming (therefore expensive) than spam as far
>> as I am concerned.
>
> The time costs to the caller limits the burden on the recipient. One
> cold-caller can't call one million people and use up their resources.
> The cold-calls are not collect, as is the case with spam where the
> recipient is paying for the message.

I don't know what your time is worth, but mine is worth quite a bit.
Assuming you are local, you can pick up the phone at ZERO COST (beyond
basic phone service that you likely have already) and call my company at
SIGNIFICANT cost to me in staff time and productivity. That costs me much
more than spam. And really, the big picture is worth understanding here,
but the costs that matter most to the individual recipient are lower for
spam than that cold call.

>> So, since there's a good chance I've already been labelled a
>> pro-spammer by the anti-spammers,
>
> No, I would just label you ignorant of the workings of the Internet
> which is why you attempt to compare spam to things that have zero to
> do with spam.

Your label is silly. And wrong. And your failure to understand analogy is
tedious.

>> let me point out why spam is here to stay whether
>> people like it or not:
>>
>> 1. It is very cheap for the senders and therefore relatively easy to
>> justify.
>
> Justify? It's easy to put a quarter in the newspaper box and take a
> stack of papers. Can you justify that theft? Just becase something is
> easy to do, doesn't make it right.

You're parsing without bothering to get the point again. I'm pointing out
why it continues, not commenting on the "rightness". To use your words:
pay attention.

>> A very tiny response rate can make it profitable for the advertiser,
>> and even if it is not profitable, advertisers without much money will
>> try it with a "not much to lose" attitude. As long as there is any
>> result generated, some marketers will continue to use it.
>
> Some criminals will continue their petty theft as well because they
> feel that their theft is insignificant.

Yes they will. So?

[snip]

>> This is not an endorsement, just a statement of fact. Which is what I
>> believe Scott was also trying to state in some of his posts.
>
> He also stated that he has used spam and continues to encourange
> spamming.

Well, actually, I don't believe he did (your repeated assertions to the
contrary notwithstanding). I think he said he had clients who used it. If
you say you have a friend who cheated on their taxes, does that mean you
cheated on yours? Or encouraged cheating?

If you want to know what he would recommend with regard to UCE, why don't
you actually ask him instead of assuming?

[SNIP]
>> This has now happened with spam. A LOT of people and companies make
>> many millions of dollars in the "fight against spam."
>
> Name one company making millions from the fight against spam.

I didn't say one company did. I said a lot of people and companies did.

>> Because this allows those who are most irritated with spam to reduce
>> that irritation, it will also reduce the number of people fighting
>> vehemently against it.
>
> No, those vehemently fighting against it do not filter because they
> know that is doing the spammer a favor and helping to protect the
> spammer by not complaining to their ISP.

May they enjoy their self-imposed martyrdom.

>> When anti-spammers lash out against anyone who is not as vehemently
>> opposed to spam as they are, they often come across as emotional and
>> somewhat out of touch with the reality of why spam continues and how
>> marketing decisions are made.

McWebber, your response here has fully supported my statement above. You have
become a broken record in these threads. Even the casual reader of these forums
understood where you stood on this subject partway through your very first
post. You have added little since then except unending repetition of the same
emotionally charged value judgements.

If you actually want to help improve the situation regarding spam or convince
anyone of your position, you are sure going about it the wrong way.

The legality of the issue is far from being resolved. The ethics, morals,
and values involved are NOT black and white, despite your insistence that
they are. And spam is not as unique among advertising methods as you
would like to make it sound.

Understanding the opposing points of view and encouraging discussion of
alternative approaches might be a lot more useful.

George Demmer
--------
Reality Marketing Associates
Vancouver, BC

"Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
> > What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy
> > of advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
> > original mailing list was.
>
> I found two links with numbers, explained below.
>
> But first I'd also like to do an unscientific survey of the readers:
>
> (1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an unsolicited
> commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or actually bought
> a product or service in response to that e-mail?

Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies that have
spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least two posters to this
group who will say they love spam and often buy from spam messages.

>
> (2) Same as (1), but substitute postal mail for e-mail.

Why? The postal mail didn't steal from me. What does one have to do with the
other?

>
> (3) Same as (1), but substitute telemarketing call for e-mail.

No. Same as above, although now I am on the DNC list so that problem has
pretty much gone away.

>
> Now here's the alleged numbers I could find on the net:
>
> "The usual click-through rate (the percentage of recipients who follow the
> links on the email) is 4 to 5 percent," [1]

He cites no source for his figure. My guess is he made it up.
http://catalogagemag.com/email/marke...spam_blockers/ (Although
also a year old.)

>
> That was a little over a year and a half ago - the author is head of
> Commtouch, an anti-spam outfit. The percentage is astronomical - so much
so
> that the numbers are probably bogus (or they are counting automatic image
> downloads that occur when people open their e-mail - hardly a voluntary
> "click through"). Some other less appealing numbers from Commtouch:

Well, that explains it. The person doesn't know the meaning of click through
then.

> By January 2004, enterprise users were already reporting dramatic
> increases over previous years, complaining that more than 50% of their
> average daily incoming mail was spam. Others have suggested the figure is
> closer to 80%." [2]

More than 90% of the email traffic to my server is blocked as spam.

> You'll find lots of Google hits on the phrase "spam is effective" or the
> words "effective" "spam" "marketing" but concrete numbers are few. Most
> just assume it must be effective because they reason: what else would
> motivate so much of it if it wasn't effective? Well, by that logic playing
> the multi-million dollar lotteries must be an effective way for people to
> make money - how else could one explain the millions people pour into it?
> Specious reasoning.

Exactly. The spammers who get paid to send the spam would love you to
believe it is effective. Yet, daily we hear of companies sorry they ever
tried it in the first place. Response was poor and the negative reaction was
overwhelming.

>
> One survey[3] asked people "How do you feel about Spam and Unsolicited
> Commercial E-Mail?" Check the link to read several hundred comments. Feel
> free to try and find the positive responses and count them.

Heh, although not a statistical survey, the comments are funny.

>
> Getting back to outrageous numbers, "Although Internet users frequently
> complain about receiving unsolicited email advertisements, 14 percent of
> consumers in an Ernst & Young survey said they will actually go to a site
> listed in a spam email. While it is not clear whether it is out of anger
or
> interest, users click on email advertisements 3 to 10 times more often
than
> they click on banners." [4]

I often go to a site advertised in spam so I can further trace the spammer
and their support services. e.g. Credit card processor, redirection, fill
out the form with a fake name to trace who replies.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.