[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: UKNM: RE: marketing spam
From: RHS Linux User
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:45:46 +0100

As yet none seems to have discussed the merits of 'opt in groups'. This
is where individuals subscribe to recieve information from a given

This has a range of benefits regarding the targetting of mail and the
ability to unsubsribe. (Can you imagine what the response rates could

However what interests me is its implication for regulating spamming in
the future. If people subscribe to a category which is controlled by a
recognised agency, the spammers would then rent the names from the

This would put all the responsibility onto the agency, in order for the
to build a reputation it would have to handle the names and spamming
issues with

Has this topic been covered yet?


James Tarin wrote:

> >Tim Jackson in his FT column a week or two back was not the first to
> >out that the economics of spam are different from dm generally.
Because the
> >incremental cost of delivering additional messages is close to zero,
> >is no significant disincentive to spamming.
> What about the costs associated with damage to brand equity? This
> 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

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]