By Philip Buxton, editor of netimperative (www.netimperative.com), 20 June 2003.

Where Will The Ban Spam Bandwagon Stop?

It's all gone off this week, and where to start? BT and Yahoo! join their formidable forces? Espotting finds a buyer - sorry - a merger partner? Overture gives away its AltaVista strategy secrets? Betfair gains a rival?

Or how about a smaller story that we ourselves only saw fit to give a paragraph and which, on reflection, is clearly what we in the trade might call 'a runner'? The All Party Internet Group (acronym: APIG: www.apig.org.uk), you see, has turned its attentions to spam. Last week it announced its plans for a public inquiry on the topic and has set a deadline of the 25th of this month for written submissions to the enquiry on how to deal with it.

On 1 July, a public 'summit' takes place - key note speaker Stephen Timms - at which a discussion on spam will be held. Eventually, in 'Autumn' of this year, the results of the inquiry and recommendations will be handed over to the Government. Unfortunately, it is evident from the language of the press releases on their site, that APIG's default position on spam is that of the bandwagon jumper.

Its agenda:

'To focus on:

- The developing legislative situation (UK, EU, US and elsewhere);

- Technical methods that may prevent spam reaching users;

- Social methods that may prevent problems with spam;

- Future trends in spam; and

- Spam's effect on other platforms (e.g. mobile phones and other devices)'

Notable by its ommission, and almost certainly the only topic that will actually be discussed, is 'what is spam?' All efforts - currently much in mode - to deal with spam eventually strike and trip over the sizeable barrier of defining what is meant by the term. For, in the end, one man's spam is another man's ad. Do advertisers ask for permission before sticking 100ft posters on local buildings? May I 'opt out' of cabs that put ads on the back of the fold-up seats? Don't genuine Viagra buyers actually appreciate the wealth of options at their disposal?

The fact is that - just as it is impossible to define 'offensive' - it is also impossible to define 'spam'. If Virgin Altantic chose to send out a half-price holiday flights campaign to every address on which it could get its hands, why would we complain - we are being offered half-price flights? And, just as any person with a semblance of respect for the notion of freedom of speech will say 'turn it over' to those that complain about TV programmes, why can't we say 'hit delete'?

Spam filters are more than capable of keeping our inboxes relatively spam free and, in fact, our own newsletter is these days frequently being rejected by technological busy bodies since we might have covered a 'dating' site or, even worse, a new 'spam' filter. 'Your message contained the word "spam".' The ultimate in anti-competitive behaviour surely.

It might also be remembered that sending out 'unsolicited' bulk marketing messages is not - at the moment - illegal. Thank the lord it is so - otherwise we would all have to change our email signatures. The legal legs on which the garishly high-profile efforts of the ISPs to sue spammers are based are the contracts they agree with their users, in which 'bulk' emailing is forbidden.

So, while no-one denies that spam is genuinely the most frustrating thing about email as it currently stands, we must all ask for sense. Knee-jerkism and the need to be seen to be doing something could well lead to a drastic resolution. Ban spam and shouldn't we ban direct mail too? Ban direct mail and shouldn't we ban cold calling? Ban cold calling and how will you sell your products to someone you haven't met? Will we be forbidden from approaching people at trade shows, or will they become the marketing equivalent of international waters? Much to think about and - as APIG will soon find out - much to discuss.

Profile

Philip Buxton began his career in journalism as a reporter for licensed trade newspaper the Licensee & Morning Advertiser, having completed a degree in marketing at Lancaster University's business school. He then joined national business weekly Marketing Week as a reporter, taking responsibility for the magazine's new media news coverage three months later. He joined netimperative (www.netimperative.com) in April 2000 as a reporter on its media & marketing channel and was appointed editor in April 2002.