How Powerful is the Turn-Off Power of Spam? 114
JayBonci asks: "Here's a question to the Slashdot readerbase. How powerful is the turnoff power of spam? With an upcoming political election in the United States, and a nation not very-well defended against mass unsolicited emailings, what kind of anti-marketing medium is spam? Could a spammer push out millions of: 'V0te for G3orge W. Bush!' or 'J0hn Kerry for Presidnet@', in the hopes to turn off (or on) voters. Spam marketing penetration is terrible (I've heard figures like .001%), but how powerful is its anti-marketing capabilities? An interesting discussion for the Slashdot audience." How often do you make the decision to NOT buy something form a company because you know they engage in spamming activities?
Enough is enough (Score:5, Funny)
Please
Re:Enough is enough (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Enough is enough (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, that's the low-speed, centralised network that the other candidate in 2000 "took the initiative in creating".
well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) I don't buy Viagra.
2) I don't like to watch pictures of my naked next door neighbour.
3) I'm quite happy with my university degree the way it is, thanks.
4) And, I'd rather not apply for another mortgage.
All in all, spam doesn't turn me off of any companies, because none of the companies that I *would* have bought from (wisely) don't use spam in the first place.
Re:well ... (Score:1)
Re:well ... (Score:1, Flamebait)
On the other hand, if I get one more "Voet Bu$h" email, I'd be willing to risk this nation's future with a scaled back and purely reactive war strategy.
Sure.
Re:well ... (Score:2)
Are you sure you don't want another degree?
"...none of the companies that I *would* have bought from (wisely) don't use spam..."
So all of the companies you buy from do use spam? Good Lord man!
Re:well ... (Score:1)
Re:well ... (Score:1)
Isn't that kind of tortured grammar banned by the Geneva convention?
in this election (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:in this election (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:in this election (Score:3, Funny)
The Supreme Court isn't nearly that large. {wry grin}
Seriously, the margin of victory in the 2000 election was within the margin of error of the polling system. It works OK when there's a substantial margin between the leading candidates (e.g. Reagan over Mondale, Clinton over Dole), but it simply isn't capable of measuring with the precision that a very close race requires.
Re:in this election (Score:1)
> the outcome. (The difference in Florida, IIRC, was 400 votes, and half
> that number needs to change.) Out of a hundred million voters, that's
> 0.0002%, so you were (amazingly) overestimating the quantity needed.
You're being inconsistent here. If you take the number 400 (thus 200) from
the very small area in Florida where the outcome was very close, then you
have to calculate the percentate that they constituted based on th
Re:in this election (Score:2)
That figure doesn't make sense. You have to remember that the national vote totals don't matter at all, thanks to the electoral college. The only thing that matters is winning individual states.
So, Florida had around 6 million people vote in the last election. If 200 people made the difference, then it was .006%
Either way, though, it's a damn small number of people. So no matter what your political beliefs, get out and vote this year.
Re:in this election (Score:1)
yes but 0.001% will that outweigh (Score:2)
Since spam marketing only measures success by the numbers that do buy their product - not the numbers who say "no way". And a vote against a candidate will mean more than a non-purchase of viagra.
Perhaps spam for Nadar (or some other independent) could thow the required spanner in the works.
Probably not very powerful (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in conclusion, I think most people who receive email from G30rg3 Bu$h realize that the Republican party likely did not send that message, and mail from J0hn |3rrY is probably equally suspect.
Re:Probably not very powerful (Score:5, Funny)
|<3rry
use the <
HTML Entities are your friend, or else a powerful enemy bent on global domination. I forget which
Also, preview is a friend
Re:Probably not very powerful (Score:1, Offtopic)
It's a bug when Plain Old Text isn't Plain Old Text.
Re:Probably not very powerful (Score:2)
Any way to get around this?
Re:Probably not very powerful (Score:2)
Re:Probably not very powerful (Score:1)
Not as powerfull as telemarketting (Score:2)
Mysterious Science (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mysterious Science (Score:2)
This is more delicate than that (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, in all fairness, that's not to say that Nader would do such a thing. Any candidate could be doing that to any random candidates - just treat the names as variables and there you go.
Re:This is more delicate than that (Score:1, Troll)
Re:This is more delicate than that (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like you're doing right now, trying to smear and discredit "Zionists" by portraying them as lying spammers? This is a tradition that goes back at least a century, with the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion [wikipedia.org] (an anti-semitic hoax) being a prime example.
I hate you (Score:1, Funny)
Are kidding me? (Score:5, Funny)
You think SPAM is going to have an effect on this election? SPAM!? You must be living in a different America my friend, because you can send Men In Black to beat me with rubber hoses while writing "Kerry Killed Your Cat HA HA!" in blood on my wall and I will still drag myself on broken arms to the polls to cast my vote against Bush on election day.
So no, we're well $#%@ beyond spam making a difference at this point...
Re:Are kidding me? (Score:2)
Do you realize how ignorant those sort of statements make you look? And I would say the same thing to someone making the same statement about Kerry.
The surest sign of political ignorance and naivete is the "anyone but [blank]" statement. It's so obvious that you have no clue about the issues and their complexities. Every policy -- and everything Bush has done so far -- has positives a
Re:Are kidding me? (Score:2)
You say you're "absolutely non-partisan" and then you use "Moore-ites and their ilk". Yup, absolutely non-partisan!
Bush vs Kerry. Flip side of the same coin -- just how it's been forever. No one likes it, but it's been successful so far.
*Yes, I know that's a gross
Re:Are kidding me? (Score:2)
No, I said my point was non-partisan, and it is. If you think an administration is all negative or all positive, then you are ignorant.
"Moore-ites and their ilk". Yup, absolutely non-partisan!
If you have any positive feelings toward Michael Moore and/or his movie, then you are by definition politically ignorant and naive.
I have my issues with Bush, but Moore is an atrocity to the whole concept of truth and honesty.
Re:Are kidding me? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Are You kidding? Show me a Bush policy that has positives. Honestly. He has driven our economy into the toilet with Reaganomics and overspending on military expenditures. He has pushed our nation into an era of fear and paranoia. He has repressed our basic civil liberties via the "PATRIOT" act. He has caused our country to be hated around the world through his unilateral foreign policies, resulting in whole new groups of future terrorists for our childr
Re:Are kidding me? (Score:2)
Here's just one thing to ponder. Can you really, really not see the potential benefits of a free Iraq? The potential of having a free country in the middle of that region is unbelievable. If there will ever be a World War 3, it will begin in the middle east, and we may have just c
For me personally, not so powerful in politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget about it (Score:3, Insightful)
A mailbox full of V1@gra spam doesn't make me hate Pfizer. I think Michael Moore is an obnoxious liar, but his propaganda tactics aren't going to get me to change my mind and vote for Bush in protest.
I'm so sick of the emotion-laden nonsense from both sides, when there are genuine, thoughtful, interesting, and useful arguments to be made that might allow for creative solutions. Instead, though, people like this questioner seem to feel that deceit is a better approach for dealing with significant issues.
Re:Forget about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forget about it (Score:2)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all follow the same god. They simply have differing beliefs as to which individuals in the past had true insight into God.
no affect on me (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, I *do* get tons of lefty spam. I even ended up on one of Michael Moore's mailing lists for some unknown reason.
And I have friends and even *clients* sending me anti-Bush stuff.
I hate all the lies and propaganda and crap, especially from that fat fuck (Moore). But I'm still voting for Kerry, almost entirely because I believe Bush made a mistake with the war and should be booted out.
So I guess if a person has their mind made
Re:No effect except to kill third parties (Score:2)
While most people would say "those voters threw away their vote" most people would also be wrong. Because the two major parties would take notice and say "Hey, that was a closer election that we thought, those libertarians got 15% of the vote, maybe next time we need to lean a little more toward their views to help win more support from them. This h
I #$%^ing hate spam! (Score:1)
I max out my spam filtering and block a lot of common spam tricks outright.
I do waste a fair amount of time blocking spam and checking that nothing was accidentally blocked. Although I think it is time well spent because I am blocking it from other people too.
If I knew how to track down the spam that did get through, then I would be waging war on those people for sure. They piss me off. I hate it.
If I got spammed to vote Bush, or
Re:I #$%^ing hate spam! (Score:1)
One words (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, sort of one word. I never did, nor will I ever, purchase an X-10 camera due to the popups that seemingly started the popup/popunder craze.
The sad days where I still ran Windows/IE unprotected. Man did I learn how to remove a lot of different spyware/adware.
Re:One words (Score:2)
Not at all (Score:5, Insightful)
It's irrelevant.
I get 100-300 pieces of spam daily. For all but 5-10 pieces, all I ever see is the sender and the subject line, not the body.
Even if there's a recognizable brand-name in the subject line, the spam's usually from a sender who's NOT associated with the brand-name (e.g., Viagra).
In the few cases where the sender+subject plausibly *seems* like it might be from the legitimate brand, I never confirm it by opening the mail, for fear of whatever security vulnerability it might contain.
So I virtually never know that the brand-owner should be blamed for the spam.
Re:Not at all (Score:2)
Re:Not at all (Score:2)
Spam works because
a) people are buying it, and as such, it's profitable
or
b) it's not profitable, but people are buying the notion that it is and as such are sending it
Either way, it means that a lot of people are not well-informed. The same is true for the upcoming elections. I wouldn't let spam or a
California Spam King Bill Jones running for Senate (Score:4, Informative)
marketing IS antimarkenting (Score:4, Interesting)
If the majority of population would do the same, the world would be a better place
POOR marketing is antimarkenting (Score:1)
KIA is a prime example. I will not buy a KIA. is it because they're put-put cars? no. is it because they're made of plastic? no. is it because i have something against KIA? no.
it's because of all those damned corny commercials on the radio and television.
When KIA first came on the scene, they advertised dependable cars by showing a fellow with his back seat full of coffee cups. that was cool. i remember thinking, "oh. neat. maybe i'll consider buying one of
Re:marketing IS antimarkenting (Score:2)
Nope. If uncouth advertising stopped working, the same people with the same ad budgets pushing the same products would just switch to whatever was deemed more "couth". Aside from the improved "crap ratio" of ads, everything else would be relatively the same, I think.
Advertising, whatever you may think of it, works. It's aimed at the largest common denominator and as that group goes, so goes the advertising.
Not that I wo
Easy now... (Score:1)
On the other hand, sending out loads of spam with the subject "I always knew I'd be able to vote Kerry online. sasquatch" would probably just target the same bottom feeders who buy viagra online in response to spam.
Pop Quiz (Score:2)
Fill in the blanks.
1. "hey, BILLY MAYS HERE, TO TELL YOU ABOUT... "
2. "oh no, lost ANOTHER loan to..."
3. "Itchy feet? ssssssssssssweaty feet? SMELLY FEET? "
4. "eatin' gooooooooooood, in the neigh-bor-hood!"
5. "da-da-da-da daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I'm lovin' it"
6. "can they REALLY live with their heads cut off?"
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:2)
It is at moments like this that I am glad to live outside my homeland.
As to your little quiz ...
I have no clue what 1,2,3 or 6 are (But six is very intriguing!)
I recognize the slogan for #4, but couldn't tell you who it is for ... Fridays maybe. The only one I can speculate a sponsor for is #5, and I think they're McDonalds.
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:2)
My post was a whim, to test the question,
"If a commercial is sufficiently irritating or offensive, will the public remember the sponsor well enough to reject the brand-name at the *moment* of the purchasing decision?"
Billy Mays is especially irritating -- always SHOUTING, in a grating voice.
I'm surprised that being in TJ keeps you from hearing these.
Don't you still get bombarded by USA broadcasters?
p.s. -- is Tharek still not eatin
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:1)
Muneer
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:1)
2. ditech
3. no clue
4. no clue
5. mcdonalds
6. no clue
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:1)
What the fuck?
Fake Spam: No Effect Real Spam: Big Effect. (Score:1)
If someone just sent unauthorized krap, then I would just delete it like everything else.
AMEN! Well said (and underrated, should be 2+) (Score:1)
Re:Fake Spam: No Effect Real Spam: Big Effect. (Score:2)
Like pen(7191) below, I have spam from President George W. Bush. That's what's in the From: header. Actually I don't believe for a second that Dubya himself sent me a campaign flyer, it was sent. as far as I can tell from study of the headers and links, by the Republican Party (of which he is the nominal leader) on his behalf. I have three or four other spams in the same style (they're quite attractive html work, to be honest, and probably expen$ive) pushing a few different i
I've gotten election spam (Score:2, Interesting)
It turned me off (Score:3, Interesting)
The e-mail address was only given out once to a single entity.
Re:It turned me off (Score:2)
Re:It turned me off (Score:2)
Re:It turned me off (Score:1)
So, in short, someone is spamming in Kerry's name. Whether it's to garner support for him or lose it, I don't know.
Reminds me a local election (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reminds me a local election (Score:2)
Re:Reminds me a local election (Score:1)
A Democratic candidate and Republican candidate were discussing their grass roots methods of attracting voters. The Republican candidate said whenever he used a taxi, he would give a twenty dollar tip and say, "Vote Republican." The Democrat said he used a similar method, whenever he used a taxi, he would give a one cent tip and say, "Vote Republican."
Switch the parties listed above to your heart's content
Nephilium
"What's exceptional about Europe and Americ
Does spam influence my buying decision? (Score:1)
As far as I can tell, I haven't received spam from any "real-life" companies I knew before. Therefore, spam had no influence at all on my buying decisions. Of course I won't buy from mass-mailing companies, but then I never intended to up to now.
Can someone tell me: which well-known companies have engaged in spamming activities? Except for Microsoft, of course, which strangely failed
How Powerful is the Turn-Off Power of Spam? (Score:4, Funny)
Spam has turned off our email (Score:3, Informative)
As of last week our core group no longer uses email. We agreed, as a group, that email is not productive as compared to a combination of paper memos, phone calls, faxes and runners. The amount of spam that we had to sift through and the money and effort to fight it wasn't worth the trouble.
Sure, we could have spent some more and tried to filter it better. But our focus is supposed to be on other things (emergency management, law enforcement, etc.) and not fighting spam.
So I guess the spammers win.
Or did they? They just lot a small part of their audience. Not that they'll notice. But I wonder how many others will give up on it like we've done.
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
I love the disparity between your comment and your sig. It is trivial to set up a mail daemon that only runs inside th
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Spam isn't a problem that is caused by or limited to Microsoft. Our county, as a whole, has had Novell, Microsoft, Linux and BSD based email systems. All are/were impacted. Other departments that continue to use email are highly
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Then there is the issue of the contract guys. They work from home usually and are on a variety of ISP's. You nev
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Removing shouldn't be much of an issue (you're blocking to prevent spam relays). If you really want to, auto block after 90 days of non-activity from the IP.
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
At what point do you say enough is enough?
For us, we hit that point.
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, why not switch to a private, internal Email domain instead?
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:2)
Re:Spam has turned off our email (Score:1)
A sendmail milter would do the trick nicely (or sendmail+mimedefang, then do some mimedefang-filter perl magic to select against a database of known senders).
Unfortunately it's still prone to spoofed Email. I don't really blame you for ditching Email, I think a lot of users are these days.
Look at Howard Dean (Score:1, Informative)
The best part? I'm not even American and was getting his spam.
"real news" spam (Score:2)
I'm still not sure though if the agenda is indeed political (one way or the other) or rather to shock you enough that you'd end up replying to it, hence validating your email address so that you can get some viagra spam next.