Slashdot Mirror
Spam Costs U.S. Companies $22B Annually
KoReE writes "According to this CNN article, a study at the University of Maryland says the loss of productivity from spam is costing U.S. companies $22 billion per year."
Of course, they also say people get 18.5 spam per day, and I'm tipping in at 20x that.
Of course they also say people get 18.5 spam per day, and I'm tipping in at 20x that.
Yeah, their estimate is really low. I mean, everyone runs a website that gets millions of hits a day. They apparently don't realize this.
Here, let me beat you over the head for a while...what, too ignorant or stupid to buy a helmet?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
A telephone-based survey of adults who use the Internet found that more than three-quarters receive spam daily. The average spam messages per day is 18.5 and the average time spent per day deleting them is 2.8 minutes.
2.8 minutes to delete 18 e-mails? That's 10 seconds per mail, man that's ineffective. I'd guess the companies would save billions if their employes learned how to read and respond faster, or at least if they learned that if the e-mail subject says "c1al|z", it IS spam, no reason to verify it by reading the thing.
The real problem that I noticed from the study is that 4% of people have bought something advertised through spam. That's the real problem. If everyone would just ignore it, and get there *cough* all important pills elsewhere (try Mexico!) then none of us would get spam. It's a simple cost to benefit ratio, as long as enough people buy things off spam, spammers will continue to operate.
http://www.pterrys.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
These kind of 'calculation' assume that 100% of the time an employee is 'working' is productive work. Trust me, it is not, especially when the employee has unmonitored access to the net.
Now I don't say that employees SHOULD be productive 100% of the time. I just say that the time spent deleting spam is probably taken on 'unproductive' time anyway, not on things that need to be done.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
i'm sorry, but this is such an awful attitude. spam is being inflicted on millions by a handful of greedy spammers. no one "deserves" to be harmed by it.
This sounds a lot like the wildly fictitious "cost of hackers" reports that we have all seen before.
You don't see me declaring that theifs have cost me $120 because I have locks on my doors, do you?
I know that this is a claim of lost productivity, but people sitting in front of computers aren't 100% productive. Expecting them to be so is absurd, and pinning their less-than-perfect output on spam is just scapegoating. We all hate spam, but this is just the usual cost-hunting nonsense....
There is a certain part of the population who will buy into anything. Generally they are those who would have been eaten by wolves long ago if it weren't for civilization trumping evolution. In this (relatively) enlightened age, we still have people making a mint as fortune tellers, televangelists, runners of Ponzi schemes, 'multi-level marketing', charity scams, and so on. In fact, I think that many people's tastes run to the untruth told in sonorous, comforting tones.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I think that's unfair. Someone with a website selling honey that they make in their backyard isn't necessarily going to be an expert with spam protection software, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be punished with a bunch of spam in their inbox.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I suspect that, while the figures these studies come up with are dramatic, they don't actually reflect very much actual loss of "productivity." If time is money, and each minute equals a certain amount, then millions of employees taking several seconds to delete each spam over the course of a year is going to add up. But time isn't money; time is time. American companies need to chill out a bit.
A funny, but misleading, comment. Slashdot's popularity has little to do with how much spam Taco gets. He could have posted the same contact info at PeterLorreFansUnite.com and the spam spiders still would have found him. He'd be getting roughly the same amount of spam even if his address was posted on one of the most obscure sites on the net.
I publish Vegan.com and until I abandoned the domain for use of email last autumn I was getting something like 2000 spams a day. And as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I suspect Slashdot gets a tiny bit more traffic than Vegan.com ;)
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
2.8 minutes x 200 days x 100,000,000 workers with email = 56 billion minutes ~= 1 billion work hours. The median hourly wage is $18.
but using the time it takes to delete spam as the basis for determing its economic impact is ridiculous
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You say spam only takes 5 seconds to realise and delete. The spammer is only taking five seconds of your time. What's the big deal? He shouldn't have to pay for doing this to tens of thousands of people because it only wastes a few seconds of their time, right?
Wrong.
Lets take TV ads. A nice short five second TV ad. It only takes up five seconds of everyones time. Maybe millions of people are looking at it, but what's the big deal eh? So how come then advertisers pay millions of dollars every year in order that these five second ads be shown to viewers? Same goes for ads on billboards, radio magazines, blimps, football stadia, buses, T-shirts, people's foreheads and on web banners. They should all be free right?
But spam is even worse than all these other forms of advertising because you cannot ignore spam. You must take the time to recognise it and delete it. If someone sends you spam you cannot look away. With all other forms of advertising, bar junk mail, it costs you the same amount of effort and time to look at the ad as it does not to. That's yet another reason why spam is so evil.
Spam is profitable. That's a fundamental fact. You need to make it either illegal or unprofitable or both. But how to do this without killing regular email? See the ant-spam response sheet for more info on that one.
May the Maths Be with you!
As some employees claim to read the mails in question, some have even purchased the products advertized, it appears that the bulk of this cost isn't that the mails are sent but that the employees are willfully seeking distractions in the first place. I would call this the usual cost-hunting nonsense, because people sitting in front of modern computers are not machines.
These are web-connected, multi-tasking, bright-colors-and-lights computers, and expecting employees to stay constantly focused on the task at hand is folly, at best.
I mean, look at me. I'm checking out slashdot while waiting for my build to finish when I could be answering work emails or reading code that I'm about to change. It is a personal decision that one could construe to have cost the company money, but it's really more a part of conducting business with human employees.
If you had read the article in question, you would have found that, of those surveyed, the average time supposedly spent deleting the 18.5 spam messages received per day was 2.8 minutes, rather than 12. I spend more than 2.8 minutes per day going to the restroom.
Do we see reports on CNN saying that allowing employees to use the facilities costs businesses $44 Billion/year? Should we all be in diapers to increase productivity? Would it increase productivity to be in diapers? I know that this is an inevitable result of employing non-slave labor, but the point here is that attempting to quantify these costs in an attempt to demonize spam is an exercise in futility.