Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Survey: 29% Bought Spam Email Products, But Who Cares?
Marshal's VP of Products, Bradley Anstis, said "Many of us often question ourselves, why is there so much spam? The answer is, enough people are purchasing products from spam to make it a worthwhile and profitable endeavour for spammers."
Well duh. Thanks for the press release!
People decide to buy things from all kinds of unwanted sources: flyers, stickers, magazine insert cards, bumper stickers, board signs at hockey games. Why is it big news that people buy products advertised in spam?
Here's the kicker: the survey only involved 600 people. Is it worse that about 180 of those people bought products from spam, or that media outlets are willing to jump all over a statistic that comes from a sampling of less than .0001% of the roughly 360 million people currently using the internet? Hey, 100% of the people in my house have never made a spam purchase. Take that!
Let's do our own poll and see how you, our savvy Download Squad readers stack up. Have you bought something that was just too good to pass up, even if it was spam? We'll shoot for more than 600 votes.
| Yes | |
|---|---|
| No |
Comments
14
Subscribe to commentsKenAug 20th 2008 10:39AM
hmm.. i just bought some viagra from spam made by some unknown country.. now my willy is hard like steel!
door0122Aug 20th 2008 11:15AM
"Why is it big news that people buy products advertised in spam?"
gee I dunno..maybe because it's getting worse?
semutaAug 20th 2008 11:14AM
Spam? What's spam? Thanks, Gmail!
NathanAug 20th 2008 12:20PM
Spam? What's spam? Thanks, Yahoo! Mail! Thanks GMX! And above all, thanks Thunderbird!!!!
About 50% of the spam I see in my junk folders comes from Gmail accounts.
semutaAug 20th 2008 1:55PM
I don't understand that, Nathan. Gmail filters 99.99% (if not better) of all spam emails I get (which are plenty) directly into the spam folder. Conversely, false positives are also extremely rare. I don't know what kind of filters, etc. they use, but every other ISP and email provider should receive them as a public service!
So, in Thunderbird, my spam download rate (haven't gone from POP to imap yet) is about nil. Seriously, thanks to Gmail, spam is WAY off my radar compared to all the other much more important world issues we have to deal with these days.
QuikboyAug 21st 2008 5:43AM
I never get spam in Live Hotmail. I must be doing something wrong, eh?
Marc SavoyAug 20th 2008 12:01PM
People decide to buy things from all kinds of unwanted sources: flyers, stickers, magazine insert cards, bumper stickers, board signs at hockey games. Why is it big news that people buy products advertised in spam?
I think it's very big news, indeed and quite simple, really.
Flyers, stickers, insert cards are no way near the degree in which spam is so very pervasive, invasive in our lives,
all of which are quite easy to avoid.
On the other hand, spam as the very bane of our modern society costs untold millions of dollars a year and growing, is inextricably linked to what we like to think of as the most guarded, personal zone of privacy we have, for both business and social circumstances.
To have such an insidious sense of pervasiveness gives us all a sense of utter loss of control.
This report is quite big news indeed in that it reveals what we dread most about email is that we will never get to
rid ourselves of what is inarguably one of the most annoying, loathsome aspects of modern society.
Lee MathewsAug 20th 2008 12:05PM
Gmail MAYBE misses 2 spam emails a day for me. The rest never even appear in my inbox.
The very bane of our modern society? Starvation, pollution, genocide...these things are less of an annoyance than Spam?
I'm so out of it!
KamalAug 20th 2008 12:08PM
I care cuz those idiots are encouraging spammers to spam more since it hardly costs them anything to send out bulk mail.
NathanAug 20th 2008 12:20PM
I care for other computer-illiterate people who open up that tainted (i.e. virus) spam messages.
archerAug 20th 2008 2:57PM
unbelievable.
probably the same folks that have fallen under the obama mass hypnosis
DukeAug 20th 2008 3:01PM
"Here's the kicker: the survey only involved 600 people."
Marshal's press release says that their research "attracted 622 responses". This is different than *asking* only 622 people.
If the researchers were any clever, the survey was done by sending out ~600,000 unsolicited emails to harvested email addresses. As usual, with a 0.1% response rate, 622 recipients took the survey and 180 of them said they had bought from spammers. :-)
scottyAug 20th 2008 8:59PM
29%?? Dang, I never would have guessed that number would be so high. I'm in the wrong business.
Andrew SchrockAug 21st 2008 10:11PM
That Marshal asked only ~600 people is not, in itself, indicative of a poor survey. If this sampling was a truly representative one (equivalent of asking a random cross-section of Americans), it may be entirely sufficient.
The problem is that a true representative sampling is difficult to achieve for these questions. For one, a sampling frame does not exist for Internet users. You cannot get a list of all Internet users to poll.
They would have to reveal their full research methodology to properly critique it. But it sounds like they posted a link to a survey on their website, which visitors could (or could not) participate in. This would be problematic, and raise questions about if and how these findings on Marshal visitors can be extrapolated to the population at large.
In other words, it's not the size of your sampling that matters, it's what you do with your survey that counts ;)