Slashdot Mirror
How the Spam Industry is Sustained
mOoZik writes "The BBC has an interesting article about spam and why it's still around. According to a survey, nearly 1/3 of users have clicked on spam messages and 1/10 have bought products advertised therein. "If no-one responded to junk e-mail and didn't buy products sold in this way, then spam would be as extinct as the dinosaurs.""
That's an average right? Because I can't see how 10% of people have bought stuff from spam. I think that guy who likes buying spam stuff is driving the average up.
"The list of words most commonly hidden by the spammers from anti-spam software reveals that most spam is about the old favourites: money, drugs and sex," said Mr Cluley.
and my mortgage has never been longer or harder.
Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em
But what ratio have received the $43M from an fallen African state?
Omnis amans amens
That should really be one third of people who choose to respond to telephone calls to answer surveys. I think that is a substantial skew in their results right there.
The clue by four is gonna get a workout tomorrow.
"Researchers to investigate why they were the last to figure this out."
Graham Cluley [says] "If no-one responded to junk e-mail and didn't buy products sold in this way, then spam would be as extinct as the dinosaurs."
Well, duh. That could be said for any type of advertising.
The article says 1 in 10 people buy stuff from spam.
This is an average of course. Slashdot obviously isn't the average, but it's still likely SOME of you have bought something from spam (even if it's 1 in 100 slashdotters).
So fess up. Whose being buying stuff from spam?
I've recently taken a job at a small software company and occcasionally I have to take a support call or two. We deal with school districts and our software is used primarily by special education administrators.
These are people with multiple master's degrees and I'm amazed every day by their lack of techno-savvy. If very bright highly educated people don't recognize pop-up windows as advertisements then how can we expect the "average" person to recognize the bigger issue surrounding spam?
I think the fact is that most people really don't care that much. They just accept spam the same way they accept junk snail-mail.
The vast majority of spam that I get is targeted at Americans, and hence completely irrelevent to me.
I wonder if the number of people that "have clicked on" and "have bought from" is much higher in the US than in other countries.
Not to split fucking hairs, but "bought" sort of implies that they actually got something. Defrauded, maybe, not goddamn bought. /Hates the BSA, but would like them to start smacking the "buy software now" spams.
.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Dinosaurs are extinct? Damn, and I just bought two velociraptors from a guy from Nigeria.
I have to wonder how the survey question was phrased.
If it gave an accurate and easily understandable description of SPAM (e.g. "email from someone you had not contacted in any way or did not know how they got your email address"), it would be fine.
But I have a feeling (having taken a few surveys in my day) that it was something more along the lines of "How many times in the past year did you buy a product after receiving an email about the product?"
The problem there is that it covers legitimate email offers, like from Amazon, ThinkGeek, or whatever. People might even have thought it counted when they were emailed a confirmation for their purchase.
I wish these articles would include a link to the survey.
I did not need to click on anything to have the spammers generate traffic - all I had to do was to setup a honeypot, then advertise an email address "having used" the honeypot through Newsgroups (actually my research related to much more than that, but this is a /. simplification), then identify test messages, to let them through and let spammers believe that my honeypot is in fact an open proxy - and in 11 hrs I got a few GB of spam running to my "open proxy", allowing me to study it. I have never let it out of my box, but it definitely gave the spammers adrenaline enough to keep them around for longer ... and they are still pounding my box, one year after the end of the project, and from allowing their test messages go through, and half a year since the domain whom the box belonged to, expired. Is anybody still wondering about spammers longevity?!?
== With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
I'm writing a virus.
It will randomly generate mortgage/penis enlargement/teen sluts/housewives/OEM Software spam.
It will have a "Click here to respond" link.
If you click the link, it wipes your hard drive and somehow sets your computer on fire. I need to work out how to kill the CPU fan or something...
These people who are responding to spam need to have their computers confiscated, for great justice.
That is all.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Ok, I have to know who these guys were surveying, because I'm inclined to think it was the population of a mental institution.
I really have to disagree with TFA on this one. I don't think it's "bad email behavior" keeping spam alive (viruses are a different matter, but lumped in together).
It's the stupid and unethical businesses who will pay a spammer $100 for a 200,000 user spam blast. The spammer doesn't give a rat's posterior whether or not the victim buys or clicks. All he cares about is not getting bounced. Then he gets paid.
"If no-one responded to junk e-mail and didn't buy products sold in this way, then spam would be as extinct as the dinosaurs."
This is a very simplistic view. It assumes that people measure their results carefully, and that it's the same people who keep selling. There's plenty of marketing channels out there that have a poor return on investment, but they keep alive for other reasons. Such reasons include: people don't measure the success properly, there's a new sucker born every minute, or other less financial reasons.
For instance, I had a friend who used to sell sponsorship to big golf tournaments. Companies would pay huge somes of money, and there was plenty of data around that there was a lousy ROI. They kept doing it because they wanted the perks - the premium positions & champagne, etc. He said in his few years, only saw one company actually utilise their investment well by tying it in with other promotions.
In the case of spam, it may possibly be true that it is profitable - it does appear to be the same people advertising all the time - but don't assume staying in business = good medium.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I hear you on that. I've felt great since I decided to refinance my...kneecap *ahem*. Seriously, though, I'm often amazed at how ignorant the general public can be about Spam and junk emails. I understand that some spammers are very good at what they do, but doesn't it just make you lose faith in humanity knowing that someone, somewhere, has chosen to actually open a message titled something like "drew S0MMA, V1AAGRRA, V1C0DD1N, C1AAL1S, \/ALLIUM, XANAA, C0DE1NE, Z0LOFT AT L0W somewhere end!!!!". Wow.
to educate users. If somebody signs up for a free-mail account (could work for ISPs in general as well), they are automatically send a couple of fake spams. If any link in the spam-emails is clicked, the account of the user will be closed (with an educational warning message). That will teach them...
Credit: Some MS guy I talked to. Unfortunately Hotmail-management was kinda opposed to that idea...
Reguardless of how effective spam ads may be, that doesn't excuse them from modifying the spam so that the people running filters still have to see it. If you're filtering spam, you not only don't want to buy anything from them, you don't want to even see it. I've been training spambayes for months now, and some stuff still gets through as 0% spam. Those are the people who need to be shut down, its easy enough to ignore the rest.
So, given the thousands (tens of thousands?) of spam I've recieved, I've clicked on the link from one. Suddenly 1 in 10,000 doesn't look as good as 1 in 3.
Of course, the real way that spam is funded is through scams (which only need a minute click-through rate) and by convincing one company after another that the click-through rate isn't minute. The recipients aren't the only ones being scammed.
I've always wondered why we , as a community,
don't beat them at their own game. There is
more of us then them, so if only 10% of us
would carpet bomb them with fake requests,
calling their 800 numbers, whatever they
want back, wouldn't that piss them off.
In fact, you start with one company
(my current favorite is Gevalia Coffee,
who can't stop mailing me despite repeated
phone calls and email requests, they hired
a 3rd party to "spam"), and work you way down
slowly and methodically. THat will teach normal
companies to stop doing it.
There probably are a few hard cases to crack,
but it seems there aren't all that many companies
around who do it.
Now before you all start on the "Yeah, I have a 11" penis and 36DDD breasts!" take a look at some of the spam you get. Seriously, look at a lot of it.
producttestpanel.com is a good example. Spams for discount cruises from travel companies. Spam for free movie tickets (yes, I worked for the company that did that!) and spam for other free/discount products. It's not all porn & pills. in fact, the spammers I worked for adamantly refused to send out mails for porn or pills, but "$50 Gift Cards!" and "Try our coffee samples!" were ok.
This is a *huge industry* - some of these companies were sending us checks for $60,000 per month to blast out emails.
CAN-SPAM definitely has NOT helped. I believe that it has made the problem much worse, and it's just going to get worse until that POS law is repealed.
They are secret to the people who haven't heard of them. Unfortunately, they don't teach much critical thinking in school. (I think it would be great to require a semester of media literacy in high school, where students learn all the classic propaganda techniques and how to spot them...)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Spam is an economic problem and requires an economic solution.
This story focuses on one side of it, but the amount of profit is *NOT* the problem as long as the spammers think they can divide by zero as far as the costs are concerned. Email is not and never has been free, but by designing SMTP to pretend email is free, spam is the inevitable result. If the spammer thinks another 10 million spams cost nothing, but will possibly find one more sucker to send in $39.95, then the RoI looks infinite. BROKEN economic model!
The only option that will solve the spam problem is a sound economic approach that puts a non-zero cost on each email message. I think that could be done by requiring prepaid postage. I don't know about you, but I would certainly opt in for a system that was absolutely guaranteed not to get any mass-of-stinkage spam. (This could be done transparently and compatibly with the existing SMTP email system.)
Once you have a real economic model, then you can add all the bells and whistles, and actually I have nothing against legitimate advertising from legitimate companies--as long as I control the flow and especially if I can target what I receive. In particular, I'd like a system that would let advertisers bid for my time. Something like "I'll accept a small amount of advertising email, and I'm interested in these products. What's it worth to you to reach me?" By small in this context, I'd be measuring it in terms of time, say 15 minutes per day where each worthwhile ad will probably take 1 minute to read.
The email service provider would have some of my personal information to help "market" my valuable time. However, it would be strongly in their interest to carefully safeguard my anonymity, since leaking my personal information would destroy their own value. Also, since they would be getting a percentage of the take, it would of course be in their interest to maximize the advertising-related revenue I'd receive for those few ads.
However, none of this is possible without a REAL economic model underlying email.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But you should see the SIZE of my penis!!!!
Some people have very low sales resistance. They don't really want the spam (and opt to block it if possible), but once presented with it they have little willpower.
It's scary and sad and unfortunately true.
DNA just wants to be free...
I've posted it before and you've given me the opportunity to post it again.
I'm usually not in favor of the death penalty. However, not only am I in favor of the electric chair for spammers; I'd replace the switch with a dial. After rigourous (and fun I might add) trials on the many spammers it would be marked like this:
1. Mildly painful
2. hurts
3. really stings
4. excruciating
5. probable fatality
6. likely fatality
11. human boooowwwwbeeeecue
There's hours of fun to be had as mail admins take turns lovingly sweeping the dial from 1 to 4. The mail admins will of course charge admission to mail recipients.
The child porn purveyors can get the special wire that goes in the pants.
Perhaps we could tell them the earth will be eaten by a giant space goat and put them all in a giant space ship to "save" them...
Linux is not Windows
Yeah, it really is a "not wonder", eh?
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
1) If 1/3 of the users click on spam, that means that even if the spam filters on all the major servers/clients let 66% of the spam through, the user would have to click on ~50% of those spam mails.
2) If 1 in 10 users made the purchases? Have they have outdone google's ad model?
I suspect these numbers are reported by folks in the spam industry to project better success metrics and lure in more clients.
-- Binary Finary
1 in 10 isn't hard to believe, but it really depends on what we define as 'buying from spam' and what exactly this survey is defining as spam. In my own judgement, if I try a software product and later decide to buy it from a follow-up email, I wouldn't consider that buying from spam, but did this survey consider marketing like that to be spam? To understand the accuracy of the study we have to know the parameters they set. According to this survey: 1. What is considered spam? 2. What is considered "buying from spam"? (i.e. how direct must the link between the spam and the purchase be?) 3. How large was the survey group?
(I think it would be great to require a semester of media literacy in high school, where students learn all the classic propaganda techniques and how to spot them...)
In Germany, that's what Politics and History classes are for. Saying "you are bad because your parents were bad because their parents killed thirty million people" repeatedly while shoving information material about the NSDAP down the students' throats is a pretty good way to create people who distrust politicians, themselves and everyone else.
One of the things everyone here who isn't extremely dense learns in school is that people, once there are enough of them and they are sufficiently happy and/or indoctrinated, are like sheep. Oh, and that it's easy to gain majority support for a violent regime by giving the people food and work when both are rare.
The Federal Republic of Germany - mass-producing cynics since 1948. We would be proud about it, but we outlawed national pride, so meh.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Those two figures aren't in conflict with each other. You can have a very small response rate per message, but spammers send billions and billions of messages to millions of people, and it's quite possible that 10% of the people have bought at least one thing at least once, even if they ignored thousands of other spams the received.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
She had some cheerful business cards. Turns out she'd gotten them "free" from a web site she heard about in an email. Of course, the shipping for the 250 "free" cards cost about $7, so she ended up paying about what should would have if she'd gone to a reputable printer. My wife and I looked at each other sadly and decided it wasn't likely to be worth trying to educate her...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I am very impressed by your Republican ability to find grammar errors. Please help me become a Republican so that I, too, may find grammatical errors and make tired old jokes.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Ok so I take calls on a help desk. and every week or two i get a call from a customer, asking for a special spam request. They start saying I recieved this offsensive spam message. And I have descided I no longer want to receive spam. At this point i find it hard to not laugh. I proceed to tell them we have no control over who sends your emails, we can change your email address if you want. etc etc etc. Sometimes the customer gets incredibly angry that we can't just turn it off, and that we are the ones behind there spam etc. Its not like we dont try, because we run our mail servers with a pretty high anti spam protection with mutliple solutions, only a very small percentage of spam gets though.
Its amazing to me that people compare spam to snail junk mail, and they think its something simiple like a 'no junk mail' sign could suddently make them not receive spam. I recon these are the same people who are buying stuff they receive from spam.
In the course of my pre-suit investigation, I did several canary traps. Just one response to one piece of spam resulted in calls from over 40 mortgage brokers. These brokers had paid between $30 and $50 dollars for that lead. They had purchased it from a "lead generator" company who had paid between $20 and $30 dollars, and these companies had in turn bought it from another lead generator company! And I haven't even reached the actual spammer yet.
So, one response to one piece of spam funded an entire chain of companies selling leads, generating well over $1000 in income for various persons. The consumer had parted with no cash...
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
You do not seem to know much about intimate anatomy.
Ever heard of kegel exercizes? I've known women who have given birth that are tighter than some "virgins", just because they know they have muscles down there that can be used to heighten the experience for both parties.
Why should all that fall on the man, eh? Why should we eat pills and stretch it and even operate it just to get it bigger and better? But yes, I agree with you that a man has the right to "wish"... if he is so inclined.
Just. Stop. TRYING.
Nah, I'm pretty satisfied with my rather small pecker, myself. And so are the people I've shared it with... No reason to wish for a bigger lizard just because you have a lacking love-life... trust me, thats not because of the one-eyed trouser snake. Thats because of YOU.
These are Americans we are talking about. If they got 50% bigger, most of them would collapse under their own gravitational pull.
250m American blackholes in Blackburn, Oklahoma. Now they know how many American blackholes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
No sharp objects, I'm a programmer!