4 ms·

The US Direct Marketing Association claims that "direct marketing," which most people call "junk mail" or "spam," results in about 8.7% of US GDP per year. So,

The US Direct Marketing Association claims that "direct marketing," which most people call "junk mail" or "spam," results in about 8.7% of US GDP per year. So, I would expect that quite a few people not only read junk mail but also purchase what it advertises.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Same for spam. Most likely people wouldn't send spam if they didn't make money that way.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Unless they’ve been lead to believe that it works, and it doesn’t? Or maybe the way to sell fraudulent pills doesn’t translate to how you sell many other products?
  - twblalock 9y ago
    > Unless they’ve been lead to believe that it works, and it doesn’t? In the long run, it's pretty difficult to convince a business that something makes money if the money doesn't actually show up. Sure, some businesses might be poorly run, and therefore be misled for a long time. But the industry as a whole would have noticed if spam didn't work.
    - tbrownaw 9y ago
      In the long run, it's pretty difficult to convince a business that something makes money if the money doesn't actually show up. 1. In the long run, everyone involved has moved on to other positions. 2. If the money doesn't show up, that just means you're doing it wrong. Like all the various software methodologies that are supposed to increase productivity or reduce bugs. 3. "Half of money spent on marketing is wasted, it's just impossible to know which half." The real world is rarely simple enough to give the kind of clear results you'd get from a proper well-designed experiment.
  - noitsnot 9y ago
    My bet it mostly works for third world countries where a few thousand dollars a year is average pay.
- analog31 9y ago
  In my view, it's worth considering whom spam is sold to. The customer is not the person who receives spam in their in-box. It's the person who pays for their business to conduct a spam campaign. Spam is a money-maker if it can be sold to businesses.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Somebody is handing out real money. I bet they wouldn't be doing this they didn't benefit from it.
  - tedmiston 9y ago
    Delivering spam is a money maker too. Remember that USPS is paid to deliver junk mail just like any other mail; however it's cheaper than normal mail and they will make less delivery attempts — just one, I believe.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Junk mail is cheaper per unit than first class mail, but there's so much of it that it significantly subsidizes first class mail (the mail normal people send).
- c3534l 9y ago
  The problem is it costs the sender very little, but annoys everyone.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Different for spam is how much less it costs. A penny (or tenth of one) is a bargain compared to postal prices, but would cut off most junk email.
Animats 9y ago
Nah. Advertising mostly moves spending around. It doesn't create more spending. The US savings rate is so low below the top 10% that essentially all income is spent. This is one argument for taxing advertising heavily.
- RasputinsBro 9y ago
  > Advertising mostly moves spending around. It doesn't create more spending. Citation needed. You're talking out of your ass.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - corin_ 9y ago
    I downvoted you for your rudeness but not for your sentiment. You could have disagreed civilly.
    - RasputinsBro 9y ago
      People who go around confidently stating their guesses as facts are a net negative for society and it's about time the rest of us start treating them as such.
amelius 9y ago
This is why, whenever you get unsolicited marketing calls, you should waste as much of their time as you can, even if it wastes your time. The best option is to tell them that you are interested, or even tell them that you are going to get your credit card, and then leave the phone off the hook.
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  I couldn’t do that knowing someone is on the other side of the phone just trying to earn a living. These organizations are annoying and unwelcome, but I’m not sure if they are actively nefarious. Though if it’s disguised to get through filters then I have much less sympathy for a person knowingly participating.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    I feel a little sorry for the employee themselves. I'm sure most of them know that what they do is annoying, and would choose another option for work if they could. On the other hand, my phones are all on the do-not-call list, and if they don't immediately hang up when I tell them, then I might decide to waste some of their time.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Earning a living by bothering people in their homes and wasting their time is not something I'm sympathetic to.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  Or you could automate it and not waste your own time! https://youtu.be/EzedMdx6QG4 https://youtu.be/EzedMdx6QG4
- notahacker 9y ago
  If you're working in Silicon Valley and/or a software developer, chances are the time you waste is worth a lot more than the time they waste, even if they waste more
- paxy 9y ago
csa 9y ago
This is not a fair assessment. A big chunk of the direct marketing that results in actual sales comes from catalogs that people order and/or want -- I am not sure I would call that "spam". This type of direct marketing can be very cost efficient -- it's the old idea of selling more to people who are already your customers. As for the actual junky junk mail, I've seen 1-2% yields from well-designed programs (as others have mentioned). I've seen online campaigns (fb, adwords, amazon, etc.) with comparable yields.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Same for spam. Most likely people wouldn't send spam if they didn't make money that way.

QAPereo 9y ago
Unless they’ve been lead to believe that it works, and it doesn’t? Or maybe the way to sell fraudulent pills doesn’t translate to how you sell many other products?
- twblalock 9y ago
  > Unless they’ve been lead to believe that it works, and it doesn’t? In the long run, it's pretty difficult to convince a business that something makes money if the money doesn't actually show up. Sure, some businesses might be poorly run, and therefore be misled for a long time. But the industry as a whole would have noticed if spam didn't work.
  - tbrownaw 9y ago
    In the long run, it's pretty difficult to convince a business that something makes money if the money doesn't actually show up. 1. In the long run, everyone involved has moved on to other positions. 2. If the money doesn't show up, that just means you're doing it wrong. Like all the various software methodologies that are supposed to increase productivity or reduce bugs. 3. "Half of money spent on marketing is wasted, it's just impossible to know which half." The real world is rarely simple enough to give the kind of clear results you'd get from a proper well-designed experiment.
- noitsnot 9y ago
  My bet it mostly works for third world countries where a few thousand dollars a year is average pay.
analog31 9y ago
In my view, it's worth considering whom spam is sold to. The customer is not the person who receives spam in their in-box. It's the person who pays for their business to conduct a spam campaign. Spam is a money-maker if it can be sold to businesses.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Somebody is handing out real money. I bet they wouldn't be doing this they didn't benefit from it.
- tedmiston 9y ago
  Delivering spam is a money maker too. Remember that USPS is paid to deliver junk mail just like any other mail; however it's cheaper than normal mail and they will make less delivery attempts — just one, I believe.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Junk mail is cheaper per unit than first class mail, but there's so much of it that it significantly subsidizes first class mail (the mail normal people send).
c3534l 9y ago
The problem is it costs the sender very little, but annoys everyone.
Dylan16807 9y ago
Different for spam is how much less it costs. A penny (or tenth of one) is a bargain compared to postal prices, but would cut off most junk email.

Animats 9y ago

Nah. Advertising mostly moves spending around. It doesn't create more spending. The US savings rate is so low below the top 10% that essentially all income is spent. This is one argument for taxing advertising heavily.

RasputinsBro 9y ago
> Advertising mostly moves spending around. It doesn't create more spending. Citation needed. You're talking out of your ass.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- corin_ 9y ago
  I downvoted you for your rudeness but not for your sentiment. You could have disagreed civilly.
  - RasputinsBro 9y ago
    People who go around confidently stating their guesses as facts are a net negative for society and it's about time the rest of us start treating them as such.

amelius 9y ago

This is why, whenever you get unsolicited marketing calls, you should waste as much of their time as you can, even if it wastes your time. The best option is to tell them that you are interested, or even tell them that you are going to get your credit card, and then leave the phone off the hook.

thisacctforreal 9y ago
I couldn’t do that knowing someone is on the other side of the phone just trying to earn a living. These organizations are annoying and unwelcome, but I’m not sure if they are actively nefarious. Though if it’s disguised to get through filters then I have much less sympathy for a person knowingly participating.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  I feel a little sorry for the employee themselves. I'm sure most of them know that what they do is annoying, and would choose another option for work if they could. On the other hand, my phones are all on the do-not-call list, and if they don't immediately hang up when I tell them, then I might decide to waste some of their time.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Earning a living by bothering people in their homes and wasting their time is not something I'm sympathetic to.
thinkloop 9y ago
Or you could automate it and not waste your own time! https://youtu.be/EzedMdx6QG4 https://youtu.be/EzedMdx6QG4
notahacker 9y ago
If you're working in Silicon Valley and/or a software developer, chances are the time you waste is worth a lot more than the time they waste, even if they waste more
paxy 9y ago

csa 9y ago

This is not a fair assessment. A big chunk of the direct marketing that results in actual sales comes from catalogs that people order and/or want -- I am not sure I would call that "spam". This type of direct marketing can be very cost efficient -- it's the old idea of selling more to people who are already your customers. As for the actual junky junk mail, I've seen 1-2% yields from well-designed programs (as others have mentioned). I've seen online campaigns (fb, adwords, amazon, etc.) with comparable yields.