• silicon.com
• Technology
• Security

By silicon.com, 25 October 2004 17:10

One of the greatest problems in stopping spammers at source is actually having the law power and enforcement in place to prosecute and convict those sending the email.

One mail security expert recently told silicon.com that the identities of many of the spammers are know - but convictions are proving more tricky to come by. Others favour a 'follow the money' approach - essentially taking action against the person or persons set to benefit from the sale of whatever goods are being marketed.

The fastest growing spam campaign relates to the sale of fake Rolex watches and appears to be carried out by Online Replica Store.

So therefore the 'follow the money' approach would suggest action against the owners of the website advertised in these emails.

But who would take this action? Although politicians and government bodies such as the FTC and OFT have suggested a new hard line against rogue traders such as those employing spammers, one likely source of action should be the brand owner most affected - in this instance Rolex.

If the company wins, it realistically stands to pocket a few grand in compensation - equivalent to the sale of a watch or two. But what will it lose if it doesn't force action? In other words, how many watches won't be sold if the brand become synonymous with spam?

Every fake Rolex sold - and this site is open about the illegitimacy of the products offered in the spam - is a step towards further dilution of a brand built on exclusivity. How many of the nouveau riche would be happy wearing genuine Rolex watches if all around them are those wearing watches which at first glance are indistinguishable?

Of course fake Rolex watches have always been available - as any visitor to Thailand or China will attest. To date it's probably something which has been an irritation to the company but now with the mass-market saturation possible through such blanket offers, the brand damage and dilution of the exclusivity it trades on could change almost overnight.

Viagra, from Pfizer, has become a by-word for spam in recent years but the pharmaceuticals giant is protected to some extent by the fact the original brand was something that was talked about in hushed tones anyway. Consumers aspire to Rolex - they don't aspire to Viagra. In fact most consumers probably hope they'll have no need for the drug.

As such Viagra doesn't have to work so hard to protect its brand. Its main concern is probably the dent alternatives could put in its own revenues. But Rolex stands to lose the mystique, the cachet and the exclusivity that is at the heart of its brand. Sure it will still make great watches - but without the other trimmings they won't be watches worth anywhere near the same amount of money.

Similarly news broke today of the latest phishing scam - this time involving Red Hat Linux.

The question companies should be asking themselves is 'what damage does this do to my brand?'. Nobody wants to be mentioned in the same breath as scandal or fraud - whatever the link.

At the heart of these issues is intellectual property theft and copyright and trademark infringement. Big brands tend to have big legal teams and should have the clout and inclination to make a difference. It may sound like getting Al Capone for non-payment of taxes but it's a start.

Of course, the important caveat to this advice is such brands' interest lies in ensuring their product is left alone. The fight for Rolex would end once Rolex was no longer the subject of such emails. It would likely make no difference to the total volume of spam, merely move the spammers on to the next subject, product or victim. But companies must be aware of the damage being done to their brands and take action.