By silicon.com, 10 June 2003 16:56
COMMENT Talking to experts on the subject of spam, the same phrase has cropped up on more than one occasion, from people on completely different continents. In one instance it cropped up twice in the space of two back-to-back interviews: "Spam is in the eye of the beholder." Setting aside the suspicion that there must be a book of soundbytes to use whenever approached by a journalist, it does raise an interesting point. Are we over-reacting to the problem of spam? After all, there is a fine line - not to mention a legal distinction - between unwanted email and unsolicited email. So how much of the email we receive is actually spam? Granted, none of us ever ticked the box on Mariam Abacha's website which reads 'If you want to be contacted in the future with offers from Mariam Abacha...' but not everything we classify rashly as spam is actually legally 'unsolicited'. Many of us will have bought things online and omitted to check the right boxes relating to future offers. These aren't emails you necessarily want but nor are they ones you are being sent illegally. Isn't this just the downside of living in the e-consumer age? Taking things one step further is there a case for genuinely unsolicited marketing approaches - on- and offline? One commentator on spam told silicon.com that junk mail through your letter box, for example, is only junk mail for as log as it's of no interest to you. As soon as you pick up a leaflet and think "'That's not bad - two shirts for a tenner. I need some new shirts' it is no longer junk mail but rather it becomes highly targeted direct marketing," said Mike Grenville from 160 characters, the SMS & Mobile Messaging Association. He may have a point. Are there really degrees of spam? Email your reaction to editorial@silicon.com.
In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.
Log in or create your silicon.com account below