Can spam really work if most recipients think that it’s fraud?
The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), a forum of 65 U.S. and EU consumer organizations that develops transatlantic trade policy recommendations, conducted an online survey late last year that reaffirmed the need for a solution to email spam. More than 21,000 people in more than 36 countries responded, and the expected results illustrate users’ ongoing contempt for unsolicited email:
• 96 percent said that either they hated spam or that it annoyed them.
• 84 percent said that all unsolicited commercial emails should be banned.
• 83 percent said that they believed that most spam emails are fraud or deception.
The not-so-ho-hum response is that spam influences some people’s attitudes toward the Internet overall. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that they shop online less or not at all because they are worried about spam, giving ecommerce and opt-in emails a bad name.
One respondent from Italy commented, "I’m the director of [name not published] branch that deals with e-mail advertising campaigns in opt-in mode. Above all, we sell advertising spaces on the newsletters. Because of spamming, we encounter many obstacles for the sale of our services."
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Another disconcerting figure for many is the percentage of unsolicited email compared to the total number of email in a typical inbox. Many say spam comprises at least half of their email each day.
Consumer Dialogue, “Consumer Attitudes Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Email (Spam), 2004.
Given that information, how do you think the respondents responded to whether spam should be banned?
Do you think that all unsolicited commercial email should be banned?
Source: Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, “Consumer Attitudes Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Email (Spam), 2004.
The report states: “The percentages of people from different countries selecting the same options were remarkably similar. It would seem that there is global agreement that spam is unacceptable.” The TACD thus advises that governments should work together to devise similar strategies that address the problem.
Yet, as we already know, the real difficulty is which course to take. U.S. government restrictions imposed on January 1 this year have not stopped the influx of spam. Anti-spam technology provider Brightmail estimated that 60 percent of all Internet email in January was spam—2 percent higher than in December.
What to Do?
Most (80 percent) believe it would help to label all spam as advertising. Yet this might not make the most sense, as one U.S. respondent said: "Requiring unsolicited commercial e-mail to contain a clear identifier would allow the effective use of filters, allowing the user to control the spam. Unfortunately, it seems that much of the spam I get is from sources that would not abide by these rules, because they already try to 'trick' me into reading the message."
As for government intervention, the majority believes that opting out of a list is not enough. Rather, 82 percent of these email users would like to allow only commercial emails which they’ve agreed to receive.
What do you think government should do regarding spam?
 |
|
| Options given: |
Answer
(percent) |
| a. nothing |
2% |
| b. allow unsolicited commercial emails to be sent but require them to provide an effective removal mechanism (opt-out) |
14% |
| c. only allow commercial emails to be sent if the recipient has agreed in advance to receive them (opt-in) |
82% |
| no answer |
2% | |
|
|
Source: Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, “Consumer Attitudes Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Email (Spam), 2004.
TACD’s survey says spam filtering is only somewhat effective. Sixty-two percent of the respondents used a spam filter, but only 17 percent found them to work very well. Others said filters either block wanted messages or allow too many unwanted messages.
If you have used spam filters, how well do you feel they work?
|
|
| Options given: |
Response
(percent) |
| a. they generally work very well |
17% |
| b. they block messages I want |
6% |
| c. they let too many messages I don't want come through |
29% |
| d. both b. and c |
19% |
| e. I don't know |
19% |
| no answer |
10% | |
|
|
Source: Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, “Consumer Attitudes Concerning Unsolicited Commercial Email (Spam), 2004.
Both U.S. and EU governments have adopted measures to fend off spam, but the TACD sees that more can be done. The organization published a list of resolutions that essentially call for common legislative approaches in the U.S. and EU, a “Do Not Email” registry, ISP blocking efforts and government cooperation with the Internet industry.
However, in light of CAN-Spam’s lackluster results, there is a group of thought that questions whether legislation is the right idea. “There are three different ways to stop spam,” says Doug Peckover, co-founder and president of anti-spam solutions provider Privacy Inc. “There’s legislation, which will not work. There’s industry self-regulation, which has not worked since 1996. The third way is technology, to fight fire with fire... The problem with spam legislation and the spam problem in general is the bad actors are winning and they’re overwhelming the good actors. Businesses and consumers need new tools to stop the flood of spam.”
Or perhaps the answer is much larger than we’d prefer—involving a culture change away from email as we know it. In a brief called “The Real Answer to the Spam Problem,” Jim Nail, senior analyst at Forrester Research, wrote: “Current solutions for spam still have one big problem: they put the burden of cost on the receivers of email—ISPs, businesses, and consumers. This is the wrong approach—and it won't work. The best solution to spam is not legal, technical, or regulatory—it's economic. It's time to charge for email, making those who send bulk email volumes pay for the resources their campaigns use.”
