In hindsight, we should have predicted that spam, unsolicited commercial e-mail, would become one of those unintended consequences of easy access to consumers via the Internet. There’s no denying that Internet technology — and that which derives from it — has grown by leaps and bounds in its relatively short life of a decade.
Spam has been around for almost as long as the Internet and e-mail itself. In fact, the concept of using the Internet for mass and targeted advertising was a “selling point” in urging insurance agents (as well as most other business people) to jump on the Internet bandwagon. The insurance industry has been slow to embrace mass e-mail, which may turn out to be a good thing considering the current anti-spam climate.
The extent to which spam has become a problem in the minds of most Internet users is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon. Several anti-spam activist groups have been around for a few years. But the anti-spam movement only started to gain serious momentum in the general public’s conscience about 18 months ago. By the end of 2002, anti-spam fervor was in full swing, which was echoed by a well-publicized Harris Poll that claimed that 74 percent of Americans favored federal anti-spam legislation. The number was recently revised upward to 79 percent.
Anecdotally, my own spam research has been quite revealing. Since April of this year, I have bookmarked or saved nearly 500 different news items, articles, analysis and commentary, and op-ed pieces on the subject. I think I can safely say that my collection of background material represents a fairly diverse range of opinion and touches on the major issues often associated with discussions about spam. The following comments serve as something of a status report of where the spam issue stands now.
The definition of spam
About the only thing people consistently agree on when it comes to spam is the definition — unsolicited commercial e-mail. That definition becomes twisted, abused, reinterpreted depending on who champions which point of view. For example, some of the more militant anti-spam activists would like to see legislation banning all “unsolicited e-mail,” which is patently impossible and absurd.
Most discussion about spam seems to focus on the word “unsolicited.” But keep in mind, “unsolicited” is not synonymous with “unwanted.” For many, however, the two words become blurred. Yet, if words are to have any meaning, it must be argued that an unsolicited or “not requested” commercial e-mail could actually be wanted, albeit as a result of a happy accident or fortunate coincidence. Viewed in this light, one person’s spam might actually be another person’s answer to a need.
The definition of spam takes another twist when applied in practical terms. Many people argue that what makes spam spam is the sometimes objectionable and offensive nature of the content. For example, various polls and surveys consistently indicate that most Internet users want legislation banning sexually oriented content. But not all sexually oriented content can be labeled “porn spam,” which usually ranks number one as the most offensive kind of spam. On the other hand, that so much sexually oriented content (e.g., enhancement and performance aids) is e-mailed might indicate that it is actually wanted and fulfilling a need for a significant portion of e-mail recipients; otherwise, spammers wouldn’t go to the bother of sending it.
Some also try to equate spam with traditional junk mail and telemarketing. While spam may be similar in terms of a nuisance factor, the mail, telephone service, and e-mail are all regulated differently. On the other side of the argument, those who are pro spam claim First Amendment protection, an argument that has been effectively used with respect to junk postal mail and telemarketing. Also, the concept of direct mail marketing, telemarketing, and other forms of non-requested solicitation are time-honored and accepted forms of business communication and promotion. Thus, some ask, why shouldn’t e-mail marketing enjoy similar status?
The element of permission
The concept of permission-based marketing isn’t new. Much dialog in the spam debate centers on the element of getting permission from the e-mail recipient. Various strategies such as opt-in, opt-out, and simple remove requests are used by most respectable businesses that use commercial e-mail responsibly. Such a practice is akin to no-call lists in which consumers can request to not receive telemarketing calls. While somewhat effective, telemarketers don’t always abide by the request and call anyway, risking penalties. Postal junk mail remains the least regulated, with mountains of paper still cluttering mailboxes all over the country every day.
So, is the issue of permission really an issue? How is that spam is singled out as a nuisance much more quickly than telemarketing and postal junk mail? To some extent it may be the novelty of the medium. Consumers have been receiving postal junk mail and telemarketing calls for decades and have learned to cope. Spam is the “new kid on the block” and an easy target of criticism and contempt because of its pervasive nature in such a relatively short period of time.
While serious and responsible marketing people naturally feel defensive about the spam issue, there does seem to be a degree of inconsistency in attacking spam to such a disproportionate degree compared to other forms of marketing in which the recipient doesn’t ask for the marketing message.
For example, how many people really turn off the television when commercials interrupt the program? How many people feel cheated that every 30 minute programming segment is only 22 minutes long, with 8 minutes of sometimes mindless and offensive commercials coming into the household without permission? Could it be that un-asked-for advertising simply “comes with the territory” of commercial television? Similarly, how many people complain that 50 percent of a newspaper or consumer magazine is filled with non-requested advertising? Could it be that these un-asked-for ads simply come with the territory of commercial publishing? In like manner, could it be that un-asked-for commercial e-mail simply comes with the territory of have a mailbox on the Internet?
Government regulation
Right now there are a half dozen or so pieces of spam legislation in Congress. Up until recently, the general consensus was that at least one bill would be passed by the end of the year. Due to the predictable politicizing of the issue, spam legislation this year may be doubtful. Despite the highly publicized Federal Trade Commission hearings this spring and other committee hearings, little has yet to be decided. Instead, the spam issue remains an easy political haymaker for opportunistic senators and representatives who want to score points with their frustrated constituents going into the 2004 election cycle.
Even if and when spam legislation is passed, don’t expect it to have much impact. While politicians don’t mind being associated with a popular issue, they do mind when it comes to tampering with free speech and government support of e-commerce-related issues. At best, any new federal legislation will likely be an amalgam of various state legislation, which essentially means that the relatively ineffective status quo will be preserved.
When it comes to enforcement, very few spammers have actually been prosecuted. Resources for prosecuting spammers are limited. The few cases successfully prosecuted have made headlines, but they represent a tiny fraction of the problem. Furthermore, most of the heavy duty spamming is done by a few large and technically sophisticated organizations that have the talent and tools that make detection difficult.
Any end in sight?
It just may turn out that the best way to deal with spam is to let private enterprise and individuals take care of things themselves. After all, do we really want or need the government “monkeying around” in an area where it has little expertise and only marginal vested interest, except to appease frustrated voters over an issue that may only be a temporary problem?
For example, spam filtering programs are getting better and some are even free. The SpamBayes software reviewed last month generated favorable response. One letter writer said it reduced the amount of her spam by 70 percent in under two weeks. Surely, enterprising people will figure out ways to deal with the spam problem.
Since spam hoopla reached a crescendo in May and June, the issue has been covered to a far lesser extent in July and early August. That could indicate a number of things. People could indeed be figuring out how to cope on their own. Maybe spam was an easy “cause celeb” for a tech media that’s always on the look out for the “next big thing” that can create blockbuster headlines. Then too, maybe people are starting to realize that some of the stuff that arrives in their e-mail box is actually pretty interesting and useful after all.
Quite possibly, the hype and hoopla over spam will end up being just that, a temporary pothole on the information superhighway that was made out to be something bigger than it actually was. Time will tell.
© Copyright 2003 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved
Many people argue that what makes spam spam is the sometimes objectionable and offensive nature of the content.
It just may turn out that the best way to deal with spam is to let private enterprise and individuals take care of things themselves.