Most people I ask complain that unsolicited email is the most egregious form of advertising. There are many reasons for this, some of which I understand and some of which I don’t. To the extent that the cumulative affect of spam – clogging stuff up – is problematic, and porn and nasty words are offensive to most right-minded people, I get it. I can even see why some people might get annoyed with the same message touting mortgages or member-enhancing herbal concoctions arriving day in and day out can get tiresome. Even the deceptive subject lines. But, to the extent that spam is inherently bad because it is unsolicited, makes no sense to me at all.
With few exceptions advertising is, by its nature, obtrusive and mostly irrelevant to the luckless recipients’ needs, wants and desires. Most advertising is unsolicited, or a trade-off at best. I want televised entertainment and news, so I put up with the ads. Do I want to change my choice of tampon, refinance my house, or sleep with Fabio? I don’t. Do you? I listen to the radio, so I accept the ads. Am I suing someone, looking for hurricane shutters, needing a surgical procedure, fixing my credit scores and wishing I had to the fortitude to admit I’m an alcoholic and need help? Not this year. I drive up and down the turnpike but do I want to reconsider my unwanted pregnancy, go to college or tune in to another radio station and get a different demographically targeted set of ads? No more than I want to finish my on-the-road coffee without having to consider the fact that I should have saved a buck and bought a Styrofoam sandwich too.
Advertising – unsolicited, unwanted, and unnecessary – is everywhere! I use Instant Messenger and now have to consider whether I would do a number on Britney Spears or lie alone on a sleep-number bed. Even in the men’s room, as I stand there peeing, I am confronted with even more choices – but then again, what better place to catch my attention as I hold in my hand the very object of most advertisers subtle messaging? Yes, as an advertiser myself, I too find myself thinking on my feet.
The bottom-line? Advertising is the price we pay for free speech, freedom of choice and living in a free society. Whether unsolicited or not, it’s in your face (or in your hands) most of the time. And in the absence of these freedoms, advertising simply becomes repackaged and called propaganda. Messaging in its multifarious forms is so prevalent because it’s fundamentally human.
Shally “Shallywag” Steckerl recently had a hot thread going on with his post Didn’t like SMS recruiting? Think again! Among the possible objections to text messaging recruitment/candidate communications to cell phones is the concern that this is “spamming”. But just as Yahoo! HotJobs and Monster have mass e-mail options for employers – is that considered spamming – the end may justify the means. Candidates are a de facto – not sacrosanct – audience. What many “Oh-golly-you-spammer-degenerate” critics seemingly forget is that when a candidate posts their resume online they are inviting the attention of recruiters. If those recruiters turn to bulk mail, text messaging or mass e-mail to get their message delivered, then that’s price a candidate must be prepared to pay for advertising themselves. While I concede that the delivery method can negatively impact employer branding and the candidate experience, that’s not the point here. The point is that some people should get over themselves thinking that spam is a) unstoppable and b) the work of Satan.
I don’t choose to hear “f-ing” this and “f-ing” that, but if I’m “out there” I accept there is a possibility I will. I don’t want to cleanse my bowels or find a job but I’m grateful that there is someone out there who recognizes that one day I might. And, I know our inboxes and cell phones are so personal to us as to be near-holy, but He too moves in mysterious ways. I suggest that anyone who has the problem today we all faced a few years back with unsolicited “junk” should consider that – as with all two way communication – they too have a responsibility to manage their lives. With freedom comes responsibility, no? I say, if you don’t like it, block it. If you don’t know how to block it, read the manual. In the meantime, long live advertising - in all its myriad forms!
This post was originally published on July 25, 2006 on Diggings as part of the Recruiting.com Blog Swap.
I thought this was a wonderful post: acerbic, witty, and true all at the same time. I agree with the points you made. While I have never availed myself of email spam or other mass mailings to promote my various ventures, I can understand the cost-effectiveness of the medium and therefore don’t hold a grudge against those that do choose this advertising channel.
Dang I missed this when it was first published…
I agree with you Amitai, only I’d make one change…as you say, some people should get over themselves thinking that spam is…”stoppable”. It’s not now and hopefully never will be. Thank heaven for small mercies and the lessons in e-commerce and free enterprise our inboxes deliver daily, no matter the “annoyance” factor. Just hit delete.
Support network neutrality
Maureen Sharib
Telephone Names Sourcer
http://www.techtrak.com
513 899 9628
okay, me the typical naysayer on this one.. please talk to me in about 2 years when your spam has multiplied over 6 times.. Would love to hear your comments then
Currently I have to go through over 350 emails a day.. most don’t hit my spam folder.. so deleting isn’t as easy as one thinks. Tell you what, Maureen, willing to pay you 6 dollars an hour so that you can maintain my email all day, cause they come in all day.. and make sure it doesn’t get out of hand.
Oh that means sorting, deleting and responding.. cause you respond to one, you got to respond to them all..
Thank goodness I don’t get charged for each mail that comes into my box, but maybe if I can charge you.. well that may make a difference.
Late to the response party on this one… I’d argue that not all forms of advertising are created equal. It’s a false analogy to compare spam to radio advertising. I listen to radio for free, but DJs have to get paid and FCC licenses bought, so radio accepts advertising, and I listen to it.
My email inbox, on the other hand, is MINE. I PAY for it, each and every month. Much like my telephone, it is there for MY convenience and for the convenience of those from whom I would like to hear. I do NOT pay for it so every Russian with a fast internet connection can set up a home-based business trying to sell ME a home-based business.
Yes, advertising via unsolicited email can cost-effective, but that’s exactly why it’s a problem- you have to send it to bazillions of people to get a response, and there’s no cost-incentive to target it and make it relevant. Meanwhile, respectable people who just want to use their email to, you know, communicate, end up at the receiving end of mountains of spam. The spam to real email ratio in my inbox on any given day is literally 20:1, and I find it deeply offensive that I have to spend MY time (which costs money) to clear the crap out of MY mailbox (which also costs money).
Businesses advertising via unsolicited commercial email are essentially low-rent, less respectable versions of the companies who call you during dinner to tell you how cheap it is to rent one of their fabulous timeshares in Florida.
It’s base, it’s low, and anyone who engages in it seriously damages their reputation.
Thanks, Tiffany. Interesting points of view.
Nothing wrong with Spam, unless it costs you more sales than it makes. If you are spamming because you are lazy or lack the creativity to come up with a better solution then I suppose you get what you deserve. If spamming gets you more sales than it costs you then you should by all means utilize it. My objection to spam is not that it exists, it is that it works. But I don’t like cheap management platitudes either and they sell millions of books. Caveat emptor.
Is it spam when candidates double opt-in to receive targeted emails or cell phone text messages (SMS)? We don’t think so and neither do the candidates or employers who use our site. It is too simplistic to lump all types of bulk email and SMS campaigns into the same bucket. Those which are sent without permission are spams and in the long run do the sending organizations more harm than good. Those which are permission-based, especially double opt-in permission-based, are wanted by the recipient and I think that it is pretty presumptious of anyone to try to force those to go away simply because they don’t like to receive emails or SMS which are truly spam. Would you try to ban all knives simply because you cut yourself on one once?
Steven, fair points. I agree. For a different point of view, check the comments on an early post of mine: Sex & Spammers: Lightening Strikes & Other Acts of God