I've got to say, I disagree with Al DiGuido's article last week on
Do Not Spam lists and why they're bad.
Come on, Al. You're
right in that a Do Not Spam registry is a bad idea, but you're arguments against it are pretty weak. Let's take a look at each of those arguments:
- It's bad for the economy because it
could cause the loss of jobs - Since when is this a legitimate argument for preserving a business sector? This argument can be used to "justify" the existence of any business that is threatened by
governmental regulation, if you believe the ends justify the means. By this logic, we should deregulate every industry that is subject to governmental regulation, because doing so would create jobs.
For instance, we could claim that government regulation is killing the airline industry and argue for deregulation. But would that make anyone feel safer with regard to flying? Probably not.
- The "slippery slope" argument that Do Not Spam lists could lead to "Do not air commercials on TV and radio" legislation - Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The difference between outbound DR
(telemarketing and/or e-mail) and advertising is that advertising supports content. Advertising is part of an implied contract between publisher and consumer, and most consumers understand that
advertising underwrites content. Telemarketing and spam don't offer any value whatsoever, beyond the actual offer. Furthermore, people pay ongoing fees for access to a telephone and an e-mail box in
their homes. Telemarketing and spam represent intrusions on the consumer's turf. Advertising represents only a potential nuisance in exchange for the delivery of quality content that the consumers
asks for. A "Do Not Advertise" list would never come into being because it would violate the implied contract between consumer and publisher. No such implied contract exists with telemarketing or
spam.
advertisement
advertisement
- Do Not Call/Spam hurts the economy, and consumers should exercise power in ways that help the economy, not hurt it - To argue that a consumer placing his name on the Do Not Call
registry hurts the economy is absurd. How about the damage that telemarketers do to my business when they call me and waste my time? It could be argued that telemarketers hurt the economy by wasting
their prospects' time. Sure, I could buy a telemarketing zapper from Radio Shack or invest in anti-spam software, but why should I invest additional money on top of what I've already spent for a phone
and an e-mail box to simply protect them from people I don't want to communicate with? If I can place my name on a list that will do the same job, why wouldn't I?
- If you don't want
unsolicited e-mail, turn on your spam filter or hit delete - How about penalizing spammers for sending unsolicited e-mail in the first place? I do use a spam filter. It's very effective, but it
still takes time to do its job. In the time between shutting off my computer at night and coming to work the next morning, usually over 150 spam messages have lodged themselves in my e-mail server. It
takes at least 10 minutes for these emails to be delivered to my Inbox, plus another minute or two for CloudMark's SpamNet to filter these to my Spam folder. Are the spammers willing to pay me back
for that lost time? I think it's safe to assume that the answer is "no."
Al mentions in his article that a Do Not Spam registry would make things tougher for legitimate e-mail marketers and
have little effect on true spammers. This is the real reason why a Do Not Spam registry is a bad idea. That, plus the fact that the industry has been reluctant to come up with a realistic definition
of what constitutes spam, make for a compelling case against a Do Not Spam registry.
But let's not throw out arguments that don't make sense to justify the existence of the DR e-mail industry.
Someone like Chuck Schumer would laugh at those arguments.
I also don't want to let this issue go without saying that the commercial e-mail industry had plenty of time to protect itself from
governmental regulation. We've been talking about the spam problem for years now, and we've all discussed ways that legitimate e-mail marketers can drive a wedge of differentiation between themselves
and spammers. There's been fair warning, so e-mail marketers should share a good portion of the blame if the government wants to step in and regulate.