The right to write

By Mark Gibbs
Network World, 04/09/01

After my "Ethics of spam" column came out last week, I was amused to find that the first contributor to our online forum on Network World Fusion was the person who started it all, Parker Byron.

In case you missed that particular tirade (and I hope you have a good reason, such as a police chase, attack by a large carnivore, or being compelled by your spouse to do something more physically active than reading the trade press), allow me to recap: Mr. Byron sent me spam. When I called him to ask if he knew what he was doing, he replied he did and because it wasn't illegal he'd just go on doing it.

Mr. Byron's forum response is interesting. First he notes that johnsoncounty.com - the site the spam was about - has nothing to do with Team Byron, the realty company that features on its Web page a roster of people all with the last name Byron and, as I noted in the original column, owns the 800 number that Mr. Byron answered when I called to complain about the spam.

He says I "refused" to identify myself (not true) and he welcomes the opportunity to speak with people about his product (it's a business index of a county hundreds of miles from me - just how much speaking can you do after the first couple of minutes?).

But where Mr. Byron really gets going is in asserting that his e-mail wasn't spam but rather "target [sic] marketing intended for a specific audience." He further argues that messages reaching people that are not part of the target audience is "inconsequential."

Actually, Mr. Byron, there may seem to be no consequence to you (although I suspect you'd rather not have these columns pointing out that you're a blatant spammer), but there is a consequence to the recipient. Your credibility as an online marketer is zero, which doesn't reflect too well on your Web site.

And the issue of targeting is crucial in determining whether it's spam or not. Another participant in the forum, Frank Rios, thought Mr. Byron's message was targeted advertising because his name, e-mail address and message routing were real and he addressed valid recipients.

I disagree, as did forum participant Chris Stehlik. If your message doesn't start with, "Dear Mr. Gibbs" or "Dear Mark," and reference why you think I might be the correct person to receive your message, it is spam.

And if I see the same impersonal message being sent to multiple addresses in my domain, I know it is spam - it doesn't matter whether they are valid addresses or not.

And the issue of how the recipients are found is important. If you purchased a list that I double opted into, and I agreed that the list owner could sell my name to other companies, that's fine. Or if you find my address in a forum or as the author of some online content or you read one of my columns and you write to me along the lines of, "Mark, I read your article/comment/rant on X and I thought you might be interested in . . . " that's also all right.

But Mr. Byron asserts that he found my name through "very specific search engine criteria," which I suspect is a roundabout way of saying "I used one of those $50 spiders that trolls for e-mail addresses to build spam, er, targeted mailing lists."

Finally, Mr. Byron claims that as my e-mail address for my column is public, he has the right to write to me. Absolutely Mr. Byron, you have the right to write to me personally about whatever is on your mind. So far, you have only written to me impersonally. Write to me personally about something I have interest in (and I can assure you that a business directory for Johnson County is not one of those interests) and we can exchange thoughts. Otherwise, you have no right to write.

Write right to nwcolumn@gibbs.com.