Forum Moderators: phranque
[washingtonpost.com...]
consider for a moment the regular bulk mailer also gets a 1 - 2% return, but has to pay for postage, printing, designing, and handling before it gets to your mailbox. All this guy has to do is "click" and 180 million emails get sent.
As he said in the article, people buy the stuff he's selling.
Spam will never stop from legislation, but it can be made bearable through legislation. I like the idea that the return address be legitimate. That alone will separate the "true junk" from the legitimate businesses.
E-mail marketing is a very effective means of reaching an online audience. I use it and recommend it for my clients. As long as you are above board with your pitch and respond to requests to be removed, you will never be labeled a "spammer" in my book.
Let the battle begin.
As long as you are above board with your pitch and respond to requests to be removed, you will never be labeled a "spammer" in my book.
I think that's 2 of the 3 things to avoid being labeled a spammer -- the third being that your subscriber base is opt-in. If you're sending me business mail I didn't ask for, that's still spam even if your pitch is above board and you respond when I ask to be removed.
If the spammer in the story cited by Bradley was getting an average 1.5% response rate on his claimed 120 million messages a day, that would be nearly 2 million sales a day. That's Amazon.com - that's not some guy working out of his house in Slidell LA.
He would certainly be both the wealthiest and most famous citizen of my fair state - and he isn't either by a very long shot. I think he is mostly full of, well, you know.
I don't consider myself a spammer by a long shot - in fact, my clients often get complimented on the product I put out for them.
I'm sure this is one of those polarizing issues we should probably stay away from ;) Don't want to start an argument about who is a spammer :)
If you're sending me business mail I didn't ask for, that's still spam even if your pitch is above board and you respond when I ask to be removed.
Well that's the big problem isn't it. In order for a business to grow, you need to attract new customers. You can rely on referrals for a good portion, but you still need to get your message to the target market repeatedly.
You receive tons of "junk" mail, including coupons for local businesses that need to find new customers. Most you will throw out, but there just might be one that is a keeper. Maybe it's for the car wash, or the new restaurant you were thinking of visiting. Perhaps it's a coupon for 40% off dry cleaning. Either way, you found something of value from mail that you didn't ask for.
Granted, there is a fine line between harassing a potential customer base, and getting your message out. If I rent an email list from an organization that represents my target market, everyone on that list is fair game until they ask to be removed from my version of that list.
But I won't hammer that list every day, just as I wouldn't send out a mailer every day, or call them every day. E-mail marketing is just as valuable as any other form of marketing when used correctly and responsibly.
I'm sure this is one of those polarizing issues we should probably stay away from ;) Don't want to start an argument about who is a spammer :)
Thanks for the support!
Yes, this issue gets nasty real quick. As a moderator of this board I will be watching it and will delete, or edit if it gets threatening or emotional. If need be I can shut it down and make it read-only.
We had a similar discussion last year, and I actually was physically threatened. After referring that person (from Europe) to the FBI, the threats stopped.
So, let's keep the discussion professional.
If the spammer in the story cited by Bradley was getting an average 1.5% response rate on his claimed 120 million messages a day, that would be nearly 2 million sales a day. That's Amazon.com - that's not some guy working out of his house in Slidell LA.
But the percent could be referring to click-thrus and not sales, right?
Still, I agree with your premise that the guy's math is hard to believe in any case.
You receive tons of "junk" mail, including coupons for local businesses that need to find new customers.
Very true, but I don't pay to receive that junk mail; that junk mail doesn't limit or prevent me from receiving non-junk mail, etc., etc., etc.
Look, as you said, this debate has been waged many, many times and there's no need to hash the same arguments one more time. Just keep me off your mail lists, would ya? :)
Scelson also testified about how some Internet access providers signed little-known agreements, called "pink contracts," with known spammers to allow them to send mail in bulk, at prices higher than other commercial clients were charged.
I think a lot of blame for the daily deluge of spam lies there.
>>I think he is mostly full of, well, you know.
Agreed ;)
"This is censorship," he said, arguing that both anti-spam vigilantes and Internet providers that filter out spam are depriving people of their right to see their mail.
lol :)
120 - 180 MILLION emails every 12 HOURS
Enough people buy that crap to make it worthwhile. The overhead is practically nil.
"...true, but I don't pay to receive that junk mail; that junk mail doesn't limit or prevent me from receiving non-junk mail, etc..."
Perhaps the relative costs are different (it is cheaper to send email spam compared to other forms). But you still 'pay' to receive normal (non email) junk mail.
I wish there was a better argument against spam, because I hate it, but the most popular argument of 'you are using my resources, unlike paper junk mail' doesn't hold, I think.
Enough people buy that crap to make it worthwhile.
I don't know. The Earthlink story in the Wall Street Journal portrayed basically an unemployed kid living in a run-down neighborhood who managed to make at most a few bucks off of literally tens of millions of spam messages.
I've always wondered if any of the big time spammers make real money - I mean by now, hasn't every male in the world who needs to be larger purchased the needed pills (they didn't work for me, by the way:)) I know I have had probably 1,000 such offers in the past year - if I wanted to buy it, I would have.
I don't doubt that a profit can be made via e-mail marketing. But I seriously doubt that the kind of spam we're talking about here - forged headers, no names or phone numbers, and miracle cure products - create enough profit to be worth the headache and hassles.
Of course, if I'm wrong, I may look at starting a new business ;)
Of course, if I'm wrong, I may look at starting a new business ;)
In the immortal words of P.T.Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute!"
I read an article in Business 2.0 magazine about Vivid Entertainment - now there's a highly profitable business. But I'm not rushing out to join that one either. How would I explain it at church socials?
but who cares
Because if that is before they send the spam and they have a 10% bounce rate, then the 120 million is an inflated number. If the email addresses are from harvesting, etc. vs. opt-in, for example, then that number could be larger. I have to wonder what kind of sales pitch they are using. I want it!
I don't doubt that a profit can be made via e-mail marketing. But I seriously doubt that the kind of spam we're talking about here - forged headers, no names or phone numbers, and miracle cure products - create enough profit to be worth the headache and hassles.
I think the money is made by the people who supply the harvested email lists, not the people trying to sell the snake oil. The talk of one to two percent response rates to 180 million email shots is part of the hype the mailers use to persuade the snake oil salesmen to part with their money.
I think the money is made by the people who supply the harvested email lists
Those people are making some, as are the people who write harvester programs you can point at (say) a DMOZ category and wait for them to crawl the web and bring you lots of email addresses.
But I think the guys who are making a real packet or those like Alan Raslky who send zillions of emails on behalf of the spammer -- the mailing houses.
After all, Raslsky doesn't care really what the response / conversion rate is -- he just needs the money up front to send the zillion emails for the spammer who dreams of getting rich.
Ralsky recently boasted of the plush house he's bought on the proceeds of spamming, and that boast has brought him what some would see as poetic justice:
[counterpane.com...]
Of course, snail-mail spamming is also reprehensible, so don't try it at home.
