By all accounts, spam is on the rise again. You can hear it in the numbers being quoted by the well-known anti-spam companies (they seem to agree that it has almost doubled over a year ago) and you can see it just by looking at your inbox. Spammers have found a few new tricks that have proven particularly successful at getting past even the most modern filter.

First, they are using very, very short text-based messages that make it nearly impossible for a computer-based filter to differentiate from a human-originated message. Second, they are using more image-based spam. Again, computers can't read images, and inbox providers are reluctant to start filtering images wholesale from email. Third, many of the spam emails are simply pump-and-dump stock messages that don't require any click-throughs to achieve their goals. Fourth, and most challenging of all, spammers have now enlisted tens of millions of zombie computers to send their messages. No longer can bad email be pinned to a few IP addresses. Instead, messages are coming from countless home and work-based computers that have been compromised by Trojan software and silently been put to use in a massive, distributed spam sending engine. You can read more about these issues in this blog post by MSNBC's Bob Sullivan.

While this resurgence of spam may seem like just a new round of annoying inbox clutter, it is possible that it will drive the next set of lock-downs from ISPs and even the government. While we need to get on top of the growing spam problem, it is possible that the next set of anti-spam moves may go beyond image-blocking and potentially could put a real dent in the email marketing business. I recommend we all keep our ears to the ground on this and work through organizations like the Email Sender and Provider Coalition to help find balanced solutions that stop spam, but allow businesses to continue to use the email medium for legitimate, permission-based communications.

Posted by Bill Nussey at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times published a thought-provoking article (requires free log-in) on mobile phone ads. I've shared my thoughts on mobile advertising before, and as the debate rages on, I'm glad to continue to pitch in with my views.

The "new" idea is that consumers will accept ads in return for lower cost or free mobile phone service. Does anyone remember Juno or Cybergold? The problem with these services-for-ads programs is that the people they attract are the least likely to actually respond to the ads.

I know that a lot of people (most of whom are younger than me <grin>) have adapted to a regular stream of inbound SMS text messages from friends. Maybe they've developed the ability to check their phone while at the dentist, movies or business meetings, etc., such that they can readily ignore both personal text messages as well as ads. If this kind of behavior does not become mainstream, I suspect that ads simply will be too intrusive (because they will arrive when you are at the dentist, the movies and business meetings), and that people will take steps to ignore them.

Where I do think mobile marketing will shine is user-driven interactions: responding to billboards, signs, radio ads, TV shows, etc. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of mobile marketers that keep your telephone number and continue to SMS you every few days, like the one whose message I signed up for a few weeks back. Needless to say, the marketer has provided little information on how to keep from getting its ads (and yes, it has absolutely soured the brand in my mind).

I can't wait to see how mobile marketing plays out. No matter which direction it goes, it'll represent a fundamental change in how people live their lives and how they interact with the companies they depend on. My view is that this kind of change is always good even if there are some stumbles along the way.

Posted by Bill Nussey at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Newsflash: the new 2007 version of Microsoft's Outlook email tool no longer uses the engine in Internet Explorer to display HTML email. Instead, it uses the somewhat simpler HTML rendering engine built into Word 2007.

While increased security is most likely at the heart of Microsoft's switch, the Word HTML engine simply isn't as powerful as the one used by Internet Explorer. For example, Outlook 2007 will not display any embedded players even if security is turned off. Say goodbye to video email, Flash-based email and even animated GIFs. Even more disappointing is the lack of high-end Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) features like float and position, as well as the ability to fine-tune padding and margins in table cells. For a few more details, read the Campaign Monitor blog. For a full description, read this article by Microsoft.

I believe the impact on the world of email marketing will be minimal. The fact is, a huge subset of HTML emails do not use any of the features being removed. Additionally, Outlook 2007 is part of the Microsoft Office Suite and as such is not as widely used by consumers. According to MarketingSherpa's Email Marketing Benchmark Guide 2006, only 4 percent of consumers use Outlook. Most use AOL (20 percent), Yahoo! (19 percent), Outlook Express (15 percent), and Hotmail (12 percent).

Clearly, the BtoB world has a higher concentration of Outlook users, so it may be hit harder than BtoC. But it's noteworthy that, based on Silverpop's recent Email Creative That Works study, BtoB recipients tend to respond less well to fancy graphical email than do consumers. I suspect that BtoC emailers will not see a big change given the diversity of email tools their recipients already are using.

Bottom line, Outlook 2007's rendering engine is not a game-changing event for email marketers. Like the introduction of Gmail, it is something that requires attention, but I don't think we will see any big drops in response rates or recipient satisfaction as a result. And, looking on the bright side, if Microsoft is able to raise consumer confidence in HTML email, then we may see more consumers disabling image-blocking, which might even result in higher response rates...

There's always a silver lining <grin>.

Posted by Bill Nussey at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)