The Rise Of Second Degree Spam

from the spam-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder dept

While the Direct Marketing Association continues to push for a definition of spam that would make only fraudulent emails spam, they seem to be ignoring the fact that most spam is defined simply as "emails I don't want" - whether legitimate or not. And, under that real world definition, more and more spam is coming from so-called "legitimate" sources. People are starting to call this email "second degree spam". It's not unsolicited, because the receiver signed up at one point or another, but the company delivering the marketing messages has done nothing to make those emails relevant - and thus, in the user's eye, they're no different than spam. The marketers seem to be ignoring this because they think it's to their benefit. They're wrong. The more that lazy marketers simply blast people with irrelevant emails just because they think it's okay that someone "opted-in", the less people will pay attention to these emails. If they actually focused on customizing the messages and providing what people wanted without inundating them with useless stuff, they might actually get a good return. Unfortunately, it's easier to be lazy and use a "scorched earth" policy of blasting out as many messages as possible - even if it will only work to destroy email as a marketing mechanism.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..


If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  

    Oh, we used to do this

    identicon
    Andrew Kantor, Nov 18th, 2003 @ 5:06am

    I used to work for the National Underwriter Co. (www.nuco.com), where my boss -- Peggy Walker -- was pretty much clueless about technology. (She would send electronic memos to staff with confidential information "hidden" by changing the background color to black, not realizing that the text was still there.)
    She loved to send e-mail to customers. She would order us to send one after another -- weekly stuff, special promotions, etc. The tech folks (who didn't work for her) made all sorts of noise that it would drown out our occasional *real* messages. It didn't matter.
    She would send tech-related messages to non-tech people. She would send conference-related messages to people who bought books from the company. She would justify everything with 'they're out customer and they opted in.'
    Finally, the people who sent out the messages simply stopped. They told her they were sending them, but didn't. Simple solution, and now the company can send the occasional mail knowing that (hopefully) she hasn't spoiled the pot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  

    more frequent means more annoying

    identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, Nov 18th, 2003 @ 8:40am

    To me, a big part of whether commercial email (from companies I do business with) is objectionable is simply the frequency. A couple of companies send me email several times a year, and that's fine, even though I don't always read it. If they started sending it several a week, I would definitely opt out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  

    legitimate sources

    identicon
    Patrick, Nov 18th, 2003 @ 5:18pm

    In my experience, most (if not all) of the "legitimate" sources include a valid unsubscribe link.

    The problem arrises when I try to explain to others when to use the unsubscribe link, and when its use puts up a neon spam-me sign.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>


A word from our Sponsors...
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
From the Techdirt Archive...
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This