« George W. Bush: "All hat and no cattle" | Main | An education, or a gun? »
May 22, 2003
Do online marketers have no shame?
Read this excerpt from the Associated Press:
E-mail marketers trying to do the right thing by providing contact information and opt-out links are being driven underground by ISPs that kill their service, said Ronald Scelson, operator of Scelson Online Marketing.Scelson's company has been forced to disguise the sender information of the 180 million pieces of e-mail it sends daily, Scelson said. One carrier shut him off after receiving 1200 complaints, he said. But with a 1 percent response rate on the unsolicited commercial e-mail it sends, far more people buy the products advertised than complain about the spam, he said.
"Why do more people buy than complain about it?" Scelson asked. "If [the mail] is 100 percent legal, and [ISPs] get a single complaint, they will turn around and kill your circuit, so we go out of business or we're forced to forge the headers. The biggest complain is you can't find us. If you could, you're going to shut us down, so why should we let you find us?"
Some ISPs add to the amount spam costs U.S. busineses--estimated at $10 billion in 2003--by setting up spam filters that force bulk e-mailers to send one message at a time. The process eats additional bandwidth at both ends of the e-mail process.
Outlawing most commercial e-mail amounts to censorship, Scelson said, asking whether Congress will ban bulk postal mail as well.
"I'm told that there's a lot of cost factors in reading this e-mail," Scelson said. "When you read this e-mail, you go through and push 'delete.'" But with postal mail, he said, "you have to walk outside, take this junk mail out of the box, read this junk mail--have you thought about how much chemicals, pollution, and trees that are involved with this? And then you've got to throw it away."
I love the way he says his company has been "forced to disguise the sender information of the 180 million pieces of e-mail it sends daily." This is like saying, "You see Officer, I was forced to break in and steal his TV, because he refused to open the door and let me in to ask him if I could borrow it!" This is ridiculous. Furthermore, he claims to use opt-outs, but no one in their right minds clicks on any links in an unsolicited email. Unscrupulous spammers use those "opt-out" links for exactly the opposite purpose. They often use them as proof that your email address is valid, and send you more spam, not less!
While I partially agree with one of his ideas, standardized labels on spam - so that people can decide to ignore it all or receive it all by configuring their email clients - I seriously doubt that it could work. As soon as all email clients were updated with a standard protocol, Mr. Scelson would then claim, "They forced us to disguise our email as if it were not bulk mail, because everyone blocked it!" In my view, the only email this guy should be sending is from the prison library. His company single-handedly sends 180 million unsolicited emails a day? That's enough spam for every man, woman, and child in the US with access to the web!
Posted by Mike at May 22, 2003 11:34 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/70
Comments
"I'm told that there's a lot of cost factors in reading this e-mail," Scelson said. "When you read this e-mail, you go through and push 'delete.'" But with postal mail, he said, "you have to walk outside, take this junk mail out of the box, read this junk mail--have you thought about how much chemicals, pollution, and trees that are involved with this? And then you've got to throw it away."
But of course physical junk mail senders pay the USPS to carry their mail, whereas spam senders just burn up the time and resources (bandwidth and server disk space) of the recipients' ISPs.
Posted by: Geheimbundler at May 23, 2003 10:45 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)