Spam as a Scourge of the Internet - Essay Example

? Spam Introduction In today’s internet society, a common complaint among users is the consistent useof bulk e-mailing referred to as “Junk Mail” or “Spam.” Opt-in advertising campaigns, a permission-based marketing practice, though technically not considered spam is nevertheless viewed as intrusive. Strictly speaking, permission based email advertising refers to email from a business that the recipient has done business with but may not have specifically asked for emails from that business. “92 percent considered unsolicited commercial e-mail from a sender they don't know as spam, while 32 percent said that unsolicited commercial e-mail from a sender they've already done business with is spam” (Dean, 2003). Proponents of permission-based emails argue that the receiver can simply hit the delete button or use an opt-out option listed in the electronic advertisement if they do not want to view the email. (Godin, 1999, pg. 43). Opponents charge anything that arrives in the inbox that the recipient didn’t request is spam and that just because a purchase is made doesn’t give that company the right to inundate them with junk mail. The debate is joined whether this tactic serves to generate trade or to drive potential customers away. Spam is considered not only intrusive but is generally viewed as a scheme of some kind. Those that don’t differentiate between the two are driven away from these emails thus questioning their effectiveness. The question then becomes are permission based emails an unwanted and ineffective or a necessary and reasonable method of advertising? Argument Spammers have long attempted to justify their intrusive form of advertising. So-called permission-based marketing is just another example of spam. According to their logic, if a person forgets to check a button at the end of an online order form requesting no further correspondence, this constitutes permission. If a lawn care or maintenance man had access to your property does that give implied permission to sell you Viagra? When a service or product is purchased on the Internet, does this give implied permission for the company to suggest sell on a daily basis via your email account? If a consumer is required to type in an email address to visit the site or bought a related product from another company that, in turn, sold their email lists, this is all considered permission to inundate an email box with spam. An opt-in list can be purchased, on the Internet, of course, thus making even a respectable company’s permission list suspect. Many companies, including utility and service companies assume that an individual has granted spam permission if they have used a product or service of that company. These emails typically announce that this email is not spam; you have opted to receive this information. It goes on to espouse the company’s spam policy and that it’s policy prohibits spam of any kind. There seems to be a perception chasm between marketers and the consumer. (Dean, 2003). If the old adage ‘time is money’ is correct, then stolen time is stolen money. The theft of a few seconds will not cause a person to lose their livelihood but that is similar to saying stealing one item from a chain store won’t bankrupt the company. Wrong on a small scale is still wrong. Spammers may argue that junk mail does not have the same effect as stealing because there is an opt-out option choice on the email, but the time spent reading, following the link and then the steps necessary to stop the spam is time lost. Multiply that 30 seconds of effort by 100’s of spam emails and that is significant money stolen from an individual and/or their employer. (Rhode, 2003). Adopting Opt-in anti-spam email rules worldwide would limit spam messages, perceived or otherwise, as the consumer would have to make a deliberate choice to receive company generated email. The Opt-out option addresses the spam issue only after the unwanted message was sent. The loss of time and irritation to this point of time is reason enough to enforce stricter spam laws by employing the opt-in rule for email. What about the future? As civilization depends more and more on email to communicate, it is imperative that the opt-out, permission-based email is not an option for marketers. Unlike the opt-in method, how opt-out anti-spam law would be enforced is uncertain at best. The consumer would have to keep every documented case of the instances they opted-out of an email list so as to prove their assertion when claiming that a company ignored that request. If an opt-in law was enacted, the spamming company would have the burden of documented proof that a consumer chose to receive emails from them. Given that the line is blurred between opt-in, so-called permission-based marketing, and spam, how close we must be to having our email programs so full that legitimate, important and wanted emails would not be able to be transmitted? Many email inbox’s have a limit of on the volume able to be received. With spam on the increase, this is a real possibility for many users. Permission requires the conscious choice of a consumer to be marketed to. What about pre-checked opt-ins, a statement on a Web page saying something along the order of 'I would like to receive further promotions', but this box is already checked? The consumer must make the conscious choice to opt-out, not opt-in. Marketers use this ploy to fly under the radar of spam definitions – a sneaky scheme that allows them to fill our inboxs of unwanted mail. (Tiller, 2005). Spam by any other name is still spam. True opt-in marketing would include confirmation of this permission. After a user has elected, with or without their knowledge, to receive email commercials, a confirmation e-mail should be sent before being added to their list. If this doesn’t happen, and it usually doesn’t, “permission” had not been expressly given. There is an important difference in spamming on the internet and other forms of spam such as billboards, television and newspaper’s use of intrusive advertising. Unwanted ads in other forms of media can’t crash your computer, initiate computer viruses or contain hidden programs that steal personal information. Email spam has this powerful capability and thus must be controlled. Perpetrators have the ability to hide in the shadows of cyberspace using software as a fishing aid to steal time, money and identity from unsuspecting individuals. Permission is a matter of prospective and motive. It must be the user that defines the terms and users prefer a verifiable opt-in plan. Our national, business and personal productivity suffers from spam, not to mention the daily aggravation caused by unwanted ads taking the place of needed business and personal electronic correspondence. Counter-argument If no unsolicited emails were allowed, how then could a parent send a message to a child’s teacher requesting a meeting? If bulk email was the definition of spam, could a teacher ethically send 120 emails to all of his or her students? This is not considered spam because of the preexisting relationship between the teacher and the parents and children (Sterne, Priore, 2000, p. 13). Permission Marketing, unlike other forms of email marketing, targets only consumers who have volunteered to be marketed to. The consumer has expressed an interest in a product or service and has established a preexisting relationship with, say, a car dealership that may email many clients at once to inform them of a defective part in their auto or a 50 percent-off oil change deal this weekend – both of interest and helpful to the consumer. The consumer is offered items relevant to their interests, again, unlike other forms of advertising recognized as spam. As neither the term bulk nor unsolicited can be used without exception when defining spam, permission marketing certainly cannot be defined as spam. Used by respectable businesses that generally campaign against the use of unsolicited mail, permission marketing is a victim of an undeserved blanket definition. The use of spam by businesses that offer the usual get rich quick, prescriptions by mail or pornography and like, contribute to the bad reputation of any email not of a friend or business associate as being spam. (Dean, 2003). Spam is a scourge of the internet; of its users, consumers as well as merchants. It is not only an annoyance but is a roadblock in the lawful, responsible use of mass marketing. Permission or opt-in email is an ethical form of advertising and is the opposite of spam in that it gives the consumer the option to be on a list of subscribers. (Kinnard, 2000, p. 165). Paraphrasing P.T. Barnum, without advertising, nothing happens. The conveyance of information regarding the availability of goods is essential to consumer awareness which helps to drive the economy and lower the price of those goods. Opt-in or permission based marketing is the advertising vehicle of the future. Companies such as Amazon.com have only scratched the surface is its usability. This multi-media outlet allows the user to sign-up for updates relating to products, specific and general – an ideal permission-based marketing system beneficial to the consumer. In summation, permission-based marketing is the wave of the future as it is the most cost effective, least intrusive, most personable method for companies to reach consumers for the mutual benefit of both. . (Fagan, 2005). Conclusion Trust is the issue in internet marketing. While the overuse of spamming techniques has given a negative connotation to all electronic marketing, opt-in, permission-based emails are of great benefit to the free market system. There is little debate of that. What is of debate is the definition of opt-in. We accept other forms of intrusive advertising. To stifle this specific form of advertising over others such as television is unfair, yet if restrictions are not laid down, the free flow of essential global communication is already slowed and may eventually grind to a halt. (Newell, 2000, p. 299). They will and want to give permission as product knowledge congruent to their interest is a valuable commodity saving time and money. The abuse of this practice, though, has the opposite effect. If a person trusts a company, a relationship can be built and maintained. Unwanted email destroys that confidence as many other types of spam are less than worthy of trust. The definition of permission-based marketing is unclear as is the impact on internet trade as a whole if restrictive laws are passed and enforced. As in all other types of commercial trades and practices, the ultimate judge will be the consumer. The Internet, still in its infancy, is continuing to evolve, its uses infinite as are its potential for abuse. Where it levels out will determine its future. Until then, we continue to practice the universal morning ritual of holding a cup of coffee in one hand while deleting the “mail” in the other. References Dean, Katie. (23 October, 2003). Survey Confirms It: Spam Sucks [online]. Wired News. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from < http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60935,00.html> Fagan, Elizabeth. (2005). As Our Markets Grow Ever More Competitive, Awareness and Choice are Vitally Important. ISBA Action: Annual Report. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from < http://www.isba.org.uk/isba/x_downloads/RA05advalue.pdf> Godin, Seth. (1999). Permission Marketing. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kinnard, Shannon. (2000). Marketing with Email. Gulf Breeze: Maximum Press. Newell, Frederick. (2000). Loyalty.com. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rhode, Laura. (22 September, 2003). Cry for Antispam Laws Grows Louder [online]. PC World. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from Sterne, Jim and Priore, Anthony. (2000). Email Marketing. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing. Tiller, Jim S. (July/August, 2005). Information Systems Security. v. 14, i. 3. Wood, Craig and Smith, J. Walker. (15 March, 2004). Opt-In is Just a Start. Direct. v. 16, i4. Read More

 

Read More