Re: domain name list

From: Kim Brooks <kbrooks_at_bardo-brooks.com>
Date: Tue 08 Aug 2000 10:17:22 -0700

On the spam thread... phew, everyone take a deeeeeep
breath. I've had to explain this a million times to
clients, journalists, and colleagues, so hopefully I've
perfected a rational, shrill-free approach to
explaining why spam is not good. These are simple,
economic facts, not hysteria.

Spam is bad because, unlike direct mail, the sender
gets off virtually scot-free, while the costs are
absorbed by a) the recipient; and b) the system at
large. Costs to each include:

a) Recipients' costs: I have to download the message.
If I am using long-distance dialup, that's a cost. I
have to use up some amount of my limited mailbox space.
Many ISPs limit email to 1 MB; if I receive 10 spams a
day at 10k each, that equals 100k (plus), or 10% of my
capacity lost to involuntary use by someone else. How
do you know if you are sending to someone who has i)
metered phone rates (Europe); ii) a long-distance
connection; or iii) a small, limited mailbox? You
don't.

b) The Systemic costs: When you send off spam,
suddenly you are flooding a particular mail server, as
well as the net in general, with a large volume of
traffic. Recently, an ISPs mail server here in Seattle
actually crashed because it was slammed by a wall of
spam. Aside from the initial traffic, spam lists are
notoriously filled with bad addresses. So then all
those messages are tried, retried, finally bounced,
sent back to the originator. If the originator's email
address was faked, then there is another process of
trying, retrying, and finally bouncing... back to
someone else's server. All of this sending, trying,
bouncing and failed processes cost sys admin time,
processing time, and bandwidth time.

Of the two arguments, Cost #2 is the most significant.
Anyone who took Econ 101 knows that this a classic
example of "Tragedy of the Commons" -- there is a small
cost born by a lot of people and the system in general,
but the total cost adds up to a large sum.

Still, it's useless arguing with spammer because there
is still no cost to them, so there is no self-interest
to motivate. It's a fact of human behavior that
arguments like "Pay more for this car because it will
pollute less" just doesn't catch the self-interest of
most people. Similarly, arguments like "Pay more for
opt-in because it's a more targeted, less bouncy, more
efficient list" just doesn't hold up against FREE spam
lists. Free is always more efficient, if you're only
worried about what --you-- pay...

So here are some alternative arguments against spam:

1) It's illegal in some states, like Washington State.
How do you know you're not sending to WA residents?
You don't.

2) Some say that it's illegal nationally, depending on
how you interpret laws against unsolicited fax
advertising. Remember the arguments against fax-spam
are similar: the recipient absorbs the cost. Nobody
knows if this law applies to email just yet; are YOU
willing to be the test defendant?

3) People Just Hate It. Aside from all these
arguments, just apply that old classic rule of thumb --
when in Rome, do as the Romans. Spam is generally not
accepted on the Internet, therefore it's not a good
tactic. You can argue till you are blue in the face,
but all you are doing in the end is pissing off your
audience. Not a good marketing tactic, regardless of
the medium or legal or cultural situation.

Of all these arguments, let's face it: #3 is most
powerful because we are all marketers here. Spam
typically has a less-than-1% response rate (hmm,
similar to banner ads...). 1% of $0 cost is still free
customers, you say. But think that in the process, you
have irritated 90%, driven a more stringent 9% to
boycott you ("I'll never buy from them..."), and
perhaps hit that 1% of fanatics who will mail-bomb you,
hack you, complain to your ISP, and otherwise exact
revenge. So now are those customers really free?
Nothing is ever free, especially not Spam.

Kim Brooks
Internet Marketing
206-612-5322
kbrooks_at_bardo-brooks.com
http://www.bardo-brooks.com





Received on Tue Aug 08 2000 - 12:17:22 CDT