- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 5
What is spam?
There is no one definition which is universally adopted and this makes sense given that there are lots of different perspectives and interests at play. Bear in mind that one person’s spam is another person’s direct marketing.
In general, however, spam / unsolicited bulk email (UBE) is regarded as the activity of posting of (usually commercial) emails/messages to large volumes of addresses advertising a service or product which the recipients usually do not want.
Managing spam
Spam management usually distinguishes between opt-in and opt-out systems:
The primary supporter of the opt-out approach in South Africa is the Direct Marketing Association of South Africa (DMASA).
From the above it should be clear that the issue of managing spam involves what appear to be sets of conflicting interests and there are signs that the tension between opt-in and opt-out systems will increase under the Consumer Protection Act.
Who pays for spam?
When spam comes in the form of electronic communications you pay for it.
This can be a direct cost, e.g. the cost of opting out of an SMS distribution list* or the cost of bandwidth utilised, or an indirect cost such as a loss of productivity or the risk of a spam filter blocking legitimate communications.
For the spammer this makes sending spam electronically very attractive.
Another very important indirect cost is that in allowing unsolicited communications, a market is created for the buying and selling of personal details. This, more than anything, is a threat to consumer privacy.
* Note that under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) consumers should be able to opt-out at no cost. We believe that mechanisms to achieve this will become widely available shortly.
___
[1] http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/2008-ccs-spamalytics.pdf
There is no one definition which is universally adopted and this makes sense given that there are lots of different perspectives and interests at play. Bear in mind that one person’s spam is another person’s direct marketing.
In general, however, spam / unsolicited bulk email (UBE) is regarded as the activity of posting of (usually commercial) emails/messages to large volumes of addresses advertising a service or product which the recipients usually do not want.
Managing spam
Spam management usually distinguishes between opt-in and opt-out systems:
- Opt-in:
There must be consent to the receipt of the communication on the part of the recipient. Taken to its extreme, the opt-in system would require that explicit consent be given and that the communication sent must be relevant to that consent. Generally, however, opt-in systems are softened by allowing ‘indirect consent’ – usually this means that consent may be implied from the existence of a recent commercial relationship (assuming the communication is relevant to such communication).
Opt-in as a model for spam management is generally preferred by service providers (who don’t want to pay for and manage this traffic on their networks) and consumers (who generally prefer to have control over the direct marketing they receive).
Both the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) – in respect of email – and the Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association (WASPA) – in respect of SMS – enforce opt-in management through their respective Codes of Conduct.
- Opt-out:
It is acceptable to send unsolicited communications as long as the recipient is given the opportunity to unsubscribe from the distribution list which led to them receiving the communication in the first place. Opt-out is an expected feature of all direct marketing – if the recipient tells you they don’t want it then don’t send it to them.
As with the opt-in system there are variations on opt-out: it may be required that the sender indicates where it obtained the address from (which is pretty ineffective, particularly where there is no prohibition on the sale of address lists). A critical element of an opt-out system is that recipients are able to use the unsubscribe functionality with confidence, i.e. it must work efficiently and the recipient should not be concerned that clicking an unsubscribe link will only service to confirm their email address or MSISDN as being valid.
A major limitation on opt-out is that it is extremely difficult to opt-out of a list which the sender has purchased from a third party. In this scenario the sender receives the unsubscribe request, not the list owner.
The primary supporter of the opt-out approach in South Africa is the Direct Marketing Association of South Africa (DMASA).
From the above it should be clear that the issue of managing spam involves what appear to be sets of conflicting interests and there are signs that the tension between opt-in and opt-out systems will increase under the Consumer Protection Act.
Who pays for spam?
When spam comes in the form of electronic communications you pay for it.
This can be a direct cost, e.g. the cost of opting out of an SMS distribution list* or the cost of bandwidth utilised, or an indirect cost such as a loss of productivity or the risk of a spam filter blocking legitimate communications.
For the spammer this makes sending spam electronically very attractive.
- email: There is an almost zero cost per email and therefore even a very low conversion rate (i.e. where someone responds and a transaction is concluded) is viable. Pharmaceutical spam, for example, is estimated to have a conversion rate of 1 in 12.5 million[1] - that’s a lot of people to irritate in order to sell just one box of Viagra. The result: the ratio of spam to non-spam emails (known as the ‘spam-to-ham’ ratio) is estimated to be 4:1, i.e. 80% of all email traffic is spam.
- SMS: Currently local networks allow international networks to terminate SMS messages on a Sender Keeps All (SKA) basis. This means that no termination fee is charged by the local network and the international network keeps all revenue. So, again, the cost of sending the spam SMS is close to zero. Currently SMS spam levels sit below 10% of all SMS sent, but most readers will agree that it is a growing issue.
Another very important indirect cost is that in allowing unsolicited communications, a market is created for the buying and selling of personal details. This, more than anything, is a threat to consumer privacy.
* Note that under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) consumers should be able to opt-out at no cost. We believe that mechanisms to achieve this will become widely available shortly.
___
[1] http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/2008-ccs-spamalytics.pdf
Last edited: