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.

22 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Does that include the cost of studies about spam? by MattW · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since I read about a new spam study every other day, I'm wondering if that $22B price tag includes the cost of all the studies being done about the cost of spam?

  2. What's spam? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Funny, I get about 25 spam messages a day... now that's after the corporate firewall/antispam software has had it's hands in it... and really, any message from my boss is counted as SPAM and moved to my junk folder so, yeah, 0 spam from the world, about 25 spams from my boss... yup... near the average then I guess..

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
  3. Uh huh... by jargoone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Uh huh... by dknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      notice I said only 5 or so makes it to my inbox, so I'd say that means I DID solve my spam problem. At least, by what seems to be your definition of it. However filtering all that mail still eats up a lot of processing power, and the bandwidth to receive it.

  4. How to get less spam by umrgregg · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm tipping in at 20x that

    Yes, well, maybe you'd have less if you weren't publicly providing your email on one of the most viewed forums on the internet.

    --
    NMG
    1. Re:How to get less spam by Prairiewest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, having to post your email address for others to see on a web site is no longer a requirement. Especially since most of the web hosting companies will provide you with a free formmail script.

      I took a few steps to curb spam in 2002: first, change my email address. That alone put an abrupt halt to the flow. Second, added comments forms to all my web sites, to stop the future flow.

      Granted, I still get some spam, assumedly because some messages that I send get forwarded and harvested somewhere. I get about 2 or 3 spam emails per week right now, without using any filters at all. So that's acceptable to me.

      I continue to advise people to change their darn email address and start anew. It's pretty easy to do for *most* people. I just don't understand the paralyzing fear that overcomes them when I suggest that. I also think that "but my business email address has to stay the same!" is not a valid argument. I have assisted some people here at the university that I work in getting a brand new email address, and (surprise) life went on and people still managed to send them email.

      On a side note, I switched to a different bank in 2002, one with no monthly fees. I was amazed at how easy it was to do, and now I must be their most vocal evangelist. I'm constantly reassuring people that they, too, can stop paying monthly services charges to their bank. I think I have six converts so far :)

      And no, 2002 wasn't some magical year of transformation. I think it's just coincidental...

      Todd

  5. Re:My $0.02 by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here, let me beat you over the head for a while...what, too ignorant or stupid to buy a helmet?

  6. 10 seconds per e-mail??? by Psionicist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:10 seconds per e-mail??? by Speare · · Score: 4, Informative
      Two words: dialup and webmail.

      Some people don't use local clients which download headers, summarize subject lines, allow you to delete before reading, etc. Boggles the mind, but it's true.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  7. Strange Rationale for Coming Up With $22B... by phidipides · · Score: 5, Informative

    >Time wasted deleting junk e-mail costs American
    >businesses nearly $22 billion a year, according
    >to a new study from the University of
    >Maryland... The average spam messages per day
    >is 18.5 and the average time spent per day
    >deleting them is 2.8 minutes.

    Using this same logic, I would guess that Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. cost American businesses at least $200 billion per year. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but using the time it takes to delete spam as the basis for determing its economic impact is ridiculous. A much more accurate number would be the amount of time/money companies use to prevent spam from coming in and going out of their systems, the amount lost to phishing and other scams, etc.

    1. Re:Strange Rationale for Coming Up With $22B... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!
  8. What scares me... by myheroBobHope · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Number sounds wrong by justforaday · · Score: 4, Funny

    That number sounds wrong, how could spam cost anyone billions when all they have to do is hit the delete key!!!

    In other news, the replacement keyboard industry has announced increased sales of about $22 billion dollars a year...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  11. Wrong assumptions by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. No it can't by asoap · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is another bullshit study.

    I spent 5 minutes today scratching myself when I got into work. Now if everybody in the world does that, it costs $512823812937123 TRILLION DOLLARS every other minute! Then you'll get angry CEOS who will want to enforce rules to only higher ugly women, or remove them from the work force.

    This is just more serious bullshit. If they really want to do a study. See how much money is spent on men looking at women's breasts at work. They will find out that is 123190238127398071273891029837129387 TRILLION DOLLARS EVERY minute.

    Do these studies ever take into account that people can't spend every single waking second at work doing work, and that it neccessary to sometimes do something different. Although spam does differ, where it is a nusance, and as such it does waste peoples time constantly. But the way the factor it by putting a value on an employees time is very in accurate.

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  13. Re:My $0.02 by jxyama · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "deserve" to lose money?

    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.

  14. Funny, I don't see these on profit/loss reports... by chaboud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

  15. Total loss by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seems we see these stories about every day or two - 'companies lose $xx billion to such-and-such every year.'

    Has anyone added all of these up? With the wild loss estimates from sick days, viruses, spam, major sporting events, bee stings, and Slashdot, I wouldn't be surprised if the world as a whole is running trillions of dollars in the negative...

  16. Re:Key part of the problem by tbone1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How stupid can these people be? Buying from spammers?

    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
  17. I get 18 billion by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Does that include the cost of studies about spa by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I read about a new spam study every other day, I'm wondering if that $22B price tag includes the cost of all the studies being done about the cost of spam?

    All of these "annual amount of money lost due to X" studies are bullshit.

    This is saying that $22B a year is "lost" due to people spending an average of 2.8 minutes a day deleting emails.

    Well, how much paper has email saved over the years? How much time has email saved? How much does taking a dump cost businesses annually? What about reading /.?

    I've been hearing these "take a miniscule amount of thing X and multiply it by the number of people Y and report REALLY BIG NUMBER Z" studies all my life.

    Who cares?

    Lets do a more interesting and relevant study for people for a change. How many hundreds of millions of dollars would be saved if we switched to a 4 day workweek? How about the quality of life for everyone having at least 3 day weekends every week? That sounds interesting.