The only thing that seems to be proliferating faster than spam is the seemingly endless discourse surrounding the subject, including regulation, legislation, litigation, as well as education and
technological innovation. And while debates over exactly how to stop spam continue to ad nauseum, an overwhelming sense of inertia continues to plague the online ad industry.
"Why can't the
Internet industry get behind a single voice," Andy Sernovitz, president-CEO of GasPedal, beseeched a diverse panel of legislators, interactive marketing execs, and technology specialists during
MediaPost's recent Forecast 2004 conference in New York.
Not surprisingly, this question went largely unanswered as the experts threw out their thoughts on why the industry is having problems
coming together.
One of the main reasons cited was that spam is a problem not easily defined. It's not simply unsolicited email--though some vehemently argue the contrary. There's no
conclusive agreement, which only seems to spur more debate. These negative sentiments and the call for legislation and litigation all add up to a cacophonous, static white noise surrounding the spam
issue, infuriating consumers and costing marketers untold amounts.
The bottom line is that there's no centralized, authoritative voice coming out of the Internet marketing community. Some
feel a decision about how to reduce spam is going to made soon-with or without the industry's contribution.
"It's vitally important for our industry to seize the opportunity to join the
debate on how to stop spam," asserts H. Robert Wientzen, President and CEO of the Direct Marketing Association. "Otherwise, legitimate email marketers- those who rank among the biggest stake holders
in the debate's outcome-risk being left on the sidelines."
And while this assertion is a pro-active step for the DMA and the AIM, joining an increasingly loud, cumbersome debate may only add
to the clutter and the noise. If industry heads don't sit down together soon and go about the spam debate in a diplomatic all-for-one, one-for-all manner, then Washington will do the legislating
for them, an outcome most industry experts would like to avoid.
According to one industry expert, "There is a natural tendency to politicize these issues and then ride the political wagon
toward legislation. I worry that the best practices we discuss and try to educate the world about might fall by the wayside in a political rush towards legislation."
The urgency and
frustration surrounding this push towards firmer legislation is underscored here by Stephen Kline, Assistant to the New York State Attorney General: "Is there going to be great legislation? You're
asking legislators, who deal with spam less than one percent of their time, to completely understand it and come up with a law that's going to govern it for five years when the industry can't even
agree on what spam is."
Renard Francois, attorney with the FTC's Division of Marketing Practices, highlights the difficulty of litigating a constantly evolving problem, "This is a problem
that is not static, it always changes, and the legislation that you pass may be very specific to now, sound great and play well with the public but does not and will not address the changes that
come up 6-12 months from now."
All in all, the panelists seemed in accord that the changes implemented should be industry regulated and the culmination of a unified effort to solve a problem
that will benefit the whole industry.
There was a positive mention of the efforts of various ISPs who have been trying to work together to bring about a technical means of circumventing the
problem. Of course these efforts face the staunch opposition of the spammers themselves who have recently grown more aggressive in terms of the volume of their mailings.
According to a
recent Gartner Inc., study, approximately 50% of emails in 2003 are spam; this will grow to 60% by 2004. By 2005, content managers, rule- based software, and Internet service providers will
effectively blacklist 80% of all email marketing campaigns, including permission-based email.
However, this is only if things continue down the current disastrous path. It's on marketers now
to take immediate steps to differentiate their email- marketing from spam. Perhaps it would behoove them to band together, find on a reasonable solution, and take their case to Washington. Otherwise,
they run the risk of being marginalized by fed-up federal legislators.