RE: UKNM: Re: marketing spam

[James Tarin]

>Tim Jackson in his FT column a week or two back was not the first to point

>out that the economics of spam are different from dm generally. Because the

>incremental cost of delivering additional messages is close to zero, there

>is no significant disincentive to spamming. 


What about the costs associated with damage to brand equity? This could

easily be a consequence of spam as opposed to useful mail, and in my

eyes a significant disincentive to spamming.


Just because the direct response numbers add up does not mean that the

overall economics are viable.


jim

_______________________

James Tarin

Director of Strategy

Clarity Communications

1 Long Lane

London EC1A 9HA

Voice: 0171 397 2900

Fax: 01717 397 2939