Former Spammer Reveals Secrets in New Book 241
StonyandCher writes "A retired spammer is looking to make money from a tell-all book rather than fleecing people dependent on pharmaceuticals and people with gambling problems. In this Computerworld article 'Ed', a retired spammer, predicts the spam problem will only get worse, aided by consumers with dependencies and faster broadband speeds. From the article: 'He sent spam to recovering gambling addicts enticing them to gambling Web sites. He used e-mail addresses of people known to have bought antianxiety medication or antidepressants and targeted them with pharmaceutical spam. Response rates to spam tend to be a fraction of 1 percent. But Ed said he once got a 30 percent response rate for a campaign. The product? A niche type of adult entertainment: photos of fully clothed women popping balloons ... "Yes, I know I'm going to hell," said Ed."
One Percent With No Communication Cost! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work with targeted communications and our success rates with similar lists are just as "successful". We were looking to contact Juniors and Seniors in HS to let them know of our offerings and had a list that supposedly contained names and addresses (no e-mail/phone) of people that would be in this demographic. Out of 9800 people we had a 0.93% response rate. Being that the cost of that list was as low as it was we will do it again...
I can only imagine what an advantage it is having such a low communication cost (it costs us
Strange ending to the Summary... (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems like the least objectionable use of spam. There seem to be three problems with spam.
First, truely evil spam that contains malware, fraudulent offers, or other things that people might call the police about if it arrived via snail-mail (I'm assuming the adult entertainment site was just pornography and not malware infested).
Second, that the spammer uses botnets to accomplish his goal, which is to hid his operation because of spam-filtering/laws etc (I'm assuming the botnet is just for anonimity, as a huge e-mail server shouldn't be that costly to run.)
Finally, that we are diluged in 3,000-1,000,000 e-mails a day for crap we don't want. But a 30% success rate means that the ads were fairly well targeted and most people did want them. Ignoring for the moment the scary database that produces these lists, if you got 10 pieces of spam offering you legitimite, cheap things you may want to buy, I don't think people would be upset at all. In fact, it might make a good e-commerce site. [midnightbox.com]
Innocuous? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, let's think of the kinds of people who would pay money to watch that...
Thought so.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Take the "Make millions in real estate" category. It works... in fact, it's so rock-stupidly simple that TLC has shows about it now with people who really have no business in real estate somehow managing not to lose money. Sure, most of those people are only making $100K-$200K per year at it, but they don't do it for a living.
So, why don't these millionaire-author guys keep doing it? Because it's hard work all the time. Books, OTOH, are hard work for the time taken to research, write, and promote it.... but if it's a hit, it brings in money for years while you're.... that's right! Making more money using your system! Or not... nothing wrong with cashing in for a while, or maybe, like you said, the bottom has dropped out of the market they're pimping.
Granted there are plenty of crap systems out there, and all of them understate the amount of work required to do anything, but just because they have a book doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Interesting)
- a clean email list - cleaning an email list requires sending an email and not receiving a bounce. There is risk in testing the email because if you test too many bad ones you can get blocked, but once it's tested it's worth considerably more than an unclean email.
- list of active users - users who opened or clicked. An order of magnitude more valuable than a clean email.
- relationships - avoiding email blocks and getting unblocked
- distributed servers - avoid email blocks by sending from and rotating multiple IPs. The more you have, the more stable the delivery is.
- delivery - your email has to make it to the inbox. An order of magnitude more valuable than Bulk box delivery. Bulk delivery is still better than no delivery, which can be the case if you're blocked.
If you have all those factors in your favor, you can sustain the profits, which is what the major "legitimate" commercial emailers do. The true spammers are usually a bit more shitty, using trojans and disposable accounts, but achieve the same effect, usually at the cost of the ISP, however they're risking jail time if they're caught.Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, oddball question time. Using the above quote, yes, only a man can stick his equipment inside the balloon. However, what about the reverse? Sticking the balloon inside a woman and GENTLY inflating and deflating it again and again.
I know, I know, I'm a sick puppy. Aren't we all in some manner?
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Get off my lawn. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would. I'd mind terribly. Putting aside the creepy privacy issues (which would be enough to set me off), I just simply don't like push advertising at all. I don't want my life to interrupted by people interjecting their pleas for me to give them my money for crap I don't need.
I don't like TV ads. I don't like radio ads. I don't like billboards. I don't like fliers on phone poles. I HATE people who stick menus in my apartment door, I HATE telemarketers, and I'd hate spammers too even if they were selling me things I want. I have a habit of stopping doing business with any business that gets too pushy with its advertising (like the people who stick menus in your door), and a spam for something I want is the best way to keep me from ever buying it (at least from that vendor).
The only kind of advertising that I like is the kind where you list a product in some public forum, and I find it when I decide I'm in the market for it. (e.g. Froogle.) Anything that tries to come and find me to tell me how wonderful my life would be if I just bought it is annoying. (And God forbid an ad actually be effective and influence me to do something unwise with my money.) Unless your ad entertains me, go away.
(And yes, I realize that I am on the far end of crotchety about advertising, but that's just my opinion.)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always thought trying to figure out the root cause for a fetish is kinda pointless unless someone has a really strong obsession which interferes with their normal life and they need clinical care.
Sure, some people probably do have some fetishes which start out with some kind of Freudian-explainable experience. But, you don't need to rely on a man who used a lot of cocaine and figured everything revolved around how you were potty trained, and how badly you wanted to sleep with/kill your mother to determine why someone might do something for their own pleasure.
Nowadays, fetishes are so easy to find information on (like, say, a Slashdot article
Lets face it, go to an adult store and they've got all of the fixin's for fetish play just sitting there. You could just one day decide to try one of them out. Spot a video and decide to watch it. Or, possibly, a partner will suggest it one day just for fun.
Fetishes don't need to be just irrational/compulsive obsessions any more. They can be conscious decisions that you stumble upon and decide will just be damned fun. As Freud himself said
I for one welcome our fully clothed, balloon-popping female overlords.
Cheers
Re:Get off my lawn. (Score:1, Interesting)
No, I'm most certainly not trolling. While I certainly could have made the point more diplomatically (and less succinctly), this is a very important issue for me. I don't see how it's possible to reconcile opposition to all push-type advertising with acceptance of attempts to initiate romantic relationshps. After a lot of personal introspection, I've come to accept that position on the former -- which used to be pretty much the same as yours -- has stunted me on the latter. (socially I mean)
1) Trying to start a real relationship is different from asking for money (or sex).
How? Be specific. ("I like one and don't like the other" doesn't count.)
Forcing your desperation on a stranger is different from asking to deepen a relationship with a friend.
Well, two of my own points:
1) If you're good, it doesn't look desparate.
2) Again, *how* is it different? Be specific.
(Also, having been hit on by strangers I had zero interest in before, I will say that it is a distinctly creepy experience, and I do oppose it in general. I wouldn't want to make someone else feel that way.)
Yes, but there are situations where someone has wanted to heighten a relationship, and you *have* wanted it. What kind of rule do you want people to adhere to, that eliminates the bad instances and keeps the good?
OTHER than mind-reading, I mean.
Re:Jeeze! It is too simple (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, you choose to isolate and morally condemn the demand side of the equation as if it had no interaction with the supply side. The idea that everyone is solely responsible for their actions is only true in a vacuum. Being solely responsible for ones actions implies that no outside force could cause one to deviate from some completely internal compass. Which implies that no one could ever learn from experience.
If one can in fact learn from experience, then certain experiences can change our internal compass. Think for a moment, what would a person raised in a blank box with no outside stimulus be like? We are not individuals. We are amalgams of genes we didn't choose to be born with interacting with experiences we never chose to have.
The rush to assign blame is counterproductive. It ignores the fact that all causes themselves have causes. It is not enough to point fingers, saying "There's your problem!" and think you've solved anything. Punishing people for buying from spammers is a ludicrous solution. I mean, come on, we've been trying that approach to addictions since prohibition, and it has never, ever worked.
It is valid to focus on the purchasing end of things. Just don't jump right into the blame and punishment game. Look at what has actually worked to reduce addictive behaviors: education. Instead of punishing spam-buyers like we punish drug-addicts, why not spend that same money to educate people? It has worked wonders for tobacco addiction.
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Interesting)