Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Explaining The Business of Spam

Posted by timothy on from the wading-through-the-muck-even-now dept.

ATMAvatar writes "The IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy hosted in Oakland nearly three weeks ago featured a study on the economics of spam. It attempts to identify and analyze the chain of businesses behind spam and the products that are featured. The goal was to take a more comprehensive look at the mechanics behind the industry in an attempt to identify better, alternative means to combat spam."

13 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Low costs... by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...relative to the number of emails that can be sent. So even if a low percentage of gullible people buy the crap, it's profitable.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Low costs... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      It doesn't even have to be profitable, there just needs to be somebody with a message they want sent. Spammers aren't paid to push products, they are paid to deliver n-thousand messages. That's why we hear stories about it taking millions of messages to earn $100.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Low costs... by Zakabog · · Score: 2

      Yeah I don't get why every few months there's a story discussing the Business of Spam. High speed internet access as well as computing power are just getting cheaper so sending spam is just becoming more profitable, I don't see what's left to discuss...

    3. Re:Low costs... by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          Well, from what I've heard from people in such unsavory businesses, the profit is down. That's in conversions (convert from unknown person to paying customer) per thousand emails.

          Years ago, you could get a conversion ratio of 1:300 to 1:1,000. A few years ago, the conversion rate went to something like 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000, depending on how "clean" your list is.

          The little guys trying to push their pharmaceuticals, porn sites, or whatever do very poorly, so it could only be one of every few million make a paying customer. The good money moved over to mainstream companies. Their "targeted marketing" (i.e., spam that they'll insist you asked for) from mainstream companies has a better look and feel, *and* makes it through most spam filters.

          You are correct. Faster machines with more memory, and larger residential pipes make a *huge* difference. I knew someone who could send out 100,000 messages/hr on a 28.8 dialup on a machine with 128MB RAM. What's your 15MB/s up FiOS line and a machine with 4GB RAM going to do? A whole lot more, if you set it up right. So they aren't hurt as much by the poor conversion rates, they just make up for it by spamming more people.

          As long as people buy from spam or "targeted marketing", the companies will continue to send it. When the sales aren't there, spam will go the way of the print department store catalogs.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Low costs... by Threni · · Score: 2

      That rule applies to more than just spam; everything, from Walmart to China...(or vice versa, in fact).

    5. Re:Low costs... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3

      It doesn't even have to be profitable, there just needs to be somebody with a message they want sent. Spammers aren't paid to push products, they are paid to deliver n-thousand messages. That's why we hear stories about it taking millions of messages to earn $100.

      Kind of hard to believe. They used to pay children to deliver newspapers until it became too expensive checking up on deliveries - and there were too many complaints about newspapers being dumped. I could tell you I'm going to deliver 10 million spam/ads but would you pay me on my word - or on the basis of sales? Even without first-hand experience of the industry (Bulk Data's business of contract data entry for merchants and medical transcription service, and a "cosy" relationship with Melbourne IT). There's thousands of script kiddie spam king wanna-be's - but they're not the ones making the money. It's the "direct marketing" people that are making the bucks. And the idea that all these viagra merchants are getting rich without having any association with the spam that drives their sales.... bullshit. If you make money off products marketed with spam - you should lose the money - unless we can prove you are linked to the spammers - in which case you should lose the money and go to jail. And quick - before ISPs take the Post Offices line that it (junk mail) keeps people in jobs.

      Perhaps a law that says if you're caught spamming you have to go around to every household you spammed, and try and deliver that porn ad in person.

  2. Charging for E-mail? by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 2

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2006/feb/05/aolyahootost

    What happened to the rumours a while ago about charging for E-mail? This might stem the tide if an E-Mail cost a very small fee to send, but considering the volumes of E-Mail sent around the world, this would not be very popular at all. There will be some bright spark out there that will come up with a solution for spam E-mails soon, but those Nigerian E-mails sure are funny...

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  3. The root of the problem by jandersen · · Score: 2, Funny

    We need to find a way of dealing with the root causes of the problem; filtering and the like is like sweeping up rat droppings, what you really need is to get rid of the rats. Perhaps if we could find a way of really making this business unprofitable.

    1. Re:The root of the problem by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if we could find a way of really making this business unprofitable.

      You mean actual Spam Assassins? Government sanctioned agents hunting down and eliminating the problem of 'spam'? I like the idea but I'm afraid those government agents are too busy at the moment shutting down 'dangerous' websites and chasing pirates.

    2. Re:The root of the problem by plunderscratch · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if we could find a way of really making this business unprofitable.

      I'm gonna do my bit and finally stop responding and 'making mine bigger', it makes the missus cry these days anyway.

      --
      Guns don't kill people! Admins do!
  4. The article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/%7Esavage/papers/Oakland11.pdf

  5. apropos Mencken quote by dltaylor · · Score: 2, Funny

    âoeNo one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.â

    Henry Louis Mencken

  6. Different attack by BCW2 · · Score: 2

    Instead of going after the actual spammers why not fine the companies that hire them. If a Bank (Orchard Bank leaps to mind) hires an advertising company to push credit cards, fine the bank if their agent uses SPAM as a marketing tool. Pretty soon any reputable company will not allow their name to be tied to SPAM and anything left will be all scams.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.