Slashdot Mirror
Junkie Loves His Spam
VicPylon writes "Here is the reason we have to spend time and money on spam filters. This character actually responds to and buys from spam. I wonder if he is aware that he is supporting digital pollution?" I guess this proves that there really is something for everyone online.
...my comment on the other thread. It seems there really are people out there who value their inbox being filled with mindless junk.
In a survey by MailShell, a San Francisco antispam company, 8% of respondents said they have bought products via spam. Spammers say that percentage is probably low because many people are too embarrassed to admit responding to spam.
Well, there you go. Far higher than I'd ever have imagined...and the spammers admit that replying to spam is embarrassing. Guess they realise a bad thing when they see it.
Although
Mr. Soto recently spent more than $100 on vitamins
you do have to question the man's ability to appreciate the value of a dollar. 100 bucks on vitamins? I'll go down the high street and get three bottles for 10, thank you very much.
The problem I would have with buying *anything* from a spam email is the fact that the company has resorted to spam to pitch their wares. To me, it always smells of desperation and contempt for the customer.
In the current anti-spam climate, a company cannot use spam to market themselves and be seen as a professionally-run organisation.
Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
I'd be interested to see how often he pays for something he never receives...
I have discovered a truly marvelous
I don't think so. This could very well be completely true. This guy is a habitual impulse buyer. He's addicted to buying stuff and it evidently gives him a thrill to do so.
I've known several people that were addicted to buying things like this, only they did it at the mall, or pawn shops, or thrift stores, etc. I had a friend who's parents bought stuff all the time. Their house was stacked high with junk they never used or even touched again after it was purchased. They literally had to move large piles of random things whenever they wanted to sit on the couch, eat at the table, or do most anything in the house.
If you're addicted to this extent, what better place to feed your addiction than the internet and specifically, your email box? There are thousands of things pitched to you every day (maybe every hour!) no matter what you're doing on the net.
Just like every other media outlet, it screams "YOU NEED MORE STUFF!"... but I digress. :-)
The Internet, and spam, is just providing an unfortunately convenient way for him to acquire these purchases.
The article explains that he used to hunt rummage sales, thift stores, and flea markets, then turned to the Internet after hurting his back. He buys on eBay, and via spam. Spam is just one part of his disease, and it made an interesting story. From the tour his wife gave of their apartment, it sounds like he doesn't need most of the stuff he buys--a typical symptom of hoarding.
Another symptom will be that he is unable to throw away things that he has purchased (like those boxes of vitamins), even if he doesn't need them or they are no longer of value.
OCD medication is usually ineffective for hoarding, but counseling can help.
At any rate, he does not respresent a typical email user, but at the same time, he is not alone. It is unfortunate, but there are people with these kinds of disorders out there, and they play right into the hands of spammers and telemarketers. The sad thing is when people take advantage of them.
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
The whole article seems a bit phony. Especially the use of the word "anti" by Mr. Soto. There is one group of people who are fond of using the word "anti" to describe those who dislike spam. I get a strong feeling that this is not just some innocent guy that likes to buy from spam, and his admission of spamming once before leaves me even more suspicious.
Beer wants to be free
This was on the front page of WSJ yesterday so I assume they did some fact checking on it. It wasn't buried in the back of the paper.
.NET co-workers to move to Java. I don't think so.
That said, my first reaction, is one I always have: why when an interesting topic comes up: why do I find only sarcastic/hopefully humorous comments get through my level 4 filter? Still waiting for an answer on that.
I read the article in paper and my reaction was that they did everyone a service by writing about such people. I have no idea why anyone would buy this stuff but the fact of the matter is that spammers wouldn't spam if they didn't make money from it. MS will only change the type of software they make when they don't make money from it. It's a simple, though perhaps unlikeable fact. For every piece of junk that clutters your tv screen, your mailbox or whatever there is a reason for it other than just to bother you (and me!). It's there because someone is making money from it and because someone, like the guy in article, actually buys it.
I don't think educating such buyers is a reasonable option. Sort of like educating the user of one OS to choose to go to another one. This afternoon I'm going to educate my
But the only way to solve a problem is to understand it. The more we understand people like this guy the more likely it is that someone can find a way to direct spam/bad commercials to them and not the rest of us. Maybe a Do Call Me list.
no the guy is not an idiot...
he's a spammer. read the article... He buys items and re-sells them on his "websites"...
This ladies and gentlemen, is a spammer, he is trying to do PR for his "industry" and if he was to be researched a bit further we would see what spam companies he is behind...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The article shows him refusing a number of emails that are presented to him. So, while I tend to agree with you on the hoarding part, I think either it is not to a pathological degree -or it's a different pathology entirely.
I personally beleive that this is somewhat clear proof that marketing by e-mail can work, but only if it is taken in hand by honest companies who do not deal through an nigh-on anonymous mass-mailing scheme. Take a look at the statistics, and you will notice 8% of the respondents to a survey conducted asking whether or not they had bought anything through spam replied affirmatively, though spammers say that this number is higher due to the fact that most people having bought products through spam can not bear the embarassment of admitting it. Now if you reflect on those numbers, and consider that a lot of people delete spam as soon as they see some in their inbox, or use some kind of spam filter, you could perhaps come to a conclusion which may not be so far off the truth.
Let's suppose the companies which now sell their products through mass-mailing could come to some sort of agreement with e-mail services. This agreement would involve allowing the user to choose whether or not they would like to receive some offers from the company that has come to the agreement with the service. The e-mail service could choose to impose limits to the company, such as the number of e-mails sent and the products offered in the e-mails. As this feature would be an opt-in option, the user would be responsible for what comes through their inboxes. I think this kind of feature would actually benefit every party involved, as the e-mail service could really control what would be coming through to their users' inboxes, the users would know what to expect in their inboxes, and the companies could actually make more profit from this system. What I mean by this is, as most e-mail users would be expecting to receive their offers by e-mail, they would be the people who would be actually expected to buy what comes through. There would be more sales than there would be complaints and deletion. Last of all, this would of course benefit the people who would like to receive some honest, discounted offers by e-mail. The whole system would be completely legal.
In my opinion, this is how marketing by e-mail could actually be something that works, and that, at the end of the day, leaves both the sales companies, the e-mail services and the e-mail users satisfied.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
The scenario I would like to see is spammers simply puting "Advertisement" on the subject line (as per the legislation). They will still get all their repeat buyers and guys like this one, and filtering for those who don't want it will be a breaze. ISP's won't have to do anything anymore, which will remove the incentive for spammers to trick them in some way. And all the cool filter methods like the bayes can turn around and be used to filter ads into categories that they are most interested in (and we can still make fun of them, but it will be light-hearted, because it's not effecting our inboxes anymore :)
There are two problems with this. The first is the percentage of buyers who are not repeat buyers, and who hate spam. It's the person who hates spam, but when he was tricked into looking at the spam that was selling those Iraqi most wanted cards, broke down and got some, and then swore off spam from then on. This wedge of income for spammers is what marketing types are always counting on. The philosophy is: "They don't know they want it yet- they need me to tell them that they want it before they buy it." This isn't a major cache cow for most business people, but it's the wedge of income that marketers, including spammers, spend the most effort on. What could be done to remove this incentive from marketers? Beats me.
The second challenge is Microsoft (though it's not a challenge yet- it could become one). They would much rather be in control of the whole solution- they could have stamps or push their passports or do something like that that would bring in more revenue or cement their hold on the email market etc.- we all know the routine. To their high level corporate strategy, all the spammers simply saying "advertisement" would ruin an excellent opportunity to... extend the empire, so to speak. So, I don't know all the arguments yet, but you can bet they'll be making some in the next year or so that try to defeat the simplest solution.
So the lesson is, as much as I hate to say it, ISP's need to reward spammers who say "Advertisement" on the subject line, IMO. They need to let their spam through into some box for those who want to receive it. I believe you would see a slow, steady trickle of spammers resorting to this, because they would get the best response rates from it.
Funny thing about spam-filters. I know a doctor and she complained about how all the e-mail about Viagra (sent from colleagues) got lost, she did however get lot's of spam containing the spelling V!@G.RA (or there about).
She and her colleagues now use codewords to describe the drug in e-mail.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"