Who orders spam in Russia: research
Kaspersky Lab and Subscribe.Ru conducted a study of the Russian spam market and tried to find out who is the typical Russian customer for spammers. The study provides some assessments of the spam customers themselves: why they use this advertising channel and how effective it is.
The study is particularly relevant in connection with the entry into force on July 1, 2006 of a new version of the law “On Advertising”, in which the first attempts are made for Russia to take spam outside the legal field.
According to the survey results, a lot of interesting facts were found out. For example, it turned out that about 60% (57.9%) of spam customers deny the fact of sending spam. This indicates that companies that decide to advertise in spam are clearly aware of the negative public assessment of this phenomenon.
')
Another question, the answer to which the researchers tried to find: who directly makes the decision to conduct the mailing, who is in contact with spammers. According to the survey results, in more than 80% of cases, managers are advertising managers, but in the process of ordering spam emails, heads of companies also take an active part. Thus, in 5.6% of surveyed companies, they not only initiate an order, but also draw up business relations with spammers.
The cost of one mailing spam ranges from 1,000 to 45,000 rubles. In Moscow, they prefer mailings costing from 3001 to 6000 rubles, and in St. Petersburg they take cheaper ones. In Russia as a whole, 50% of spam customers surveyed stated that they pay from 3001 to 6000 rubles per mailing list. The amount is, of course, insignificant for a company of any scale and is completely incomparable with any legal advertising channel.
The number of addresses in one mailing list also varies greatly depending on who provides the services for the distribution of spam. The smallest named number is 100 addresses, the largest is 3.700.000. Every third customer chooses the path of "maximum coverage" - sending out over one million addresses where the target audience of the advertised goods and services is completely ignored.
The effectiveness of spam, none of the respondents could not evaluate. On average, approximate estimates of the response level sounded at 0,01-0 , 05%. Many have said that it is difficult to isolate the contribution of spam when using several advertising channels.
In general, the study allows us to draw several conclusions.
Firstly, spam customers are fully aware that, having received several hits, they will incur the wrath of the rest of the mailing list (thousands and millions of people). Companies that resort to spam, as a rule, are very small, which allows them to believe that such concepts as reputation and a positive image are not for them.
Secondly, the cost of spamming is very small. However, none of the clients of spammers can adequately assess the effect of mailing lists, incl. possible negative effect. Similarly, spam customers do not attach much importance to the audience to which the mailings are sent. Spam is ordered according to the principle “if it is so cheap, then why not”.
Thirdly, for some respondent companies a formal ban on spamming was the reason they stopped ordering spam. This is due both to possible legal risks and to even greater damage to the reputation of these companies.
The study involved companies whose names were mentioned in the text of spam messages. Based on data from the anti-spam division of Kaspersky Lab, a list of 500 such companies was compiled. The proportions of the selection of future respondents according to their fields of activity were maintained in accordance with the proportions of various topics of spam on the Runet. The largest number of spam customers is accounted for by companies operating in the field of tourism and recreation (14%), providing repair and relocation services (9.3%) and engaged in printing (7%). Other less common categories were taken into account.
Interestingly, a sociological survey was conducted anonymously, using a very original methodology. The spam customer was called by an “employee of a small company” who allegedly also wanted to order a spam mailing list and asked the “colleagues” for advice. Of course, such a technique can not be called scientific, but in this case it was difficult to come up with something better.
The study is particularly relevant in connection with the entry into force on July 1, 2006 of a new version of the law “On Advertising”, in which the first attempts are made for Russia to take spam outside the legal field.
According to the survey results, a lot of interesting facts were found out. For example, it turned out that about 60% (57.9%) of spam customers deny the fact of sending spam. This indicates that companies that decide to advertise in spam are clearly aware of the negative public assessment of this phenomenon.
')
Another question, the answer to which the researchers tried to find: who directly makes the decision to conduct the mailing, who is in contact with spammers. According to the survey results, in more than 80% of cases, managers are advertising managers, but in the process of ordering spam emails, heads of companies also take an active part. Thus, in 5.6% of surveyed companies, they not only initiate an order, but also draw up business relations with spammers.
The cost of one mailing spam ranges from 1,000 to 45,000 rubles. In Moscow, they prefer mailings costing from 3001 to 6000 rubles, and in St. Petersburg they take cheaper ones. In Russia as a whole, 50% of spam customers surveyed stated that they pay from 3001 to 6000 rubles per mailing list. The amount is, of course, insignificant for a company of any scale and is completely incomparable with any legal advertising channel.
The number of addresses in one mailing list also varies greatly depending on who provides the services for the distribution of spam. The smallest named number is 100 addresses, the largest is 3.700.000. Every third customer chooses the path of "maximum coverage" - sending out over one million addresses where the target audience of the advertised goods and services is completely ignored.
The effectiveness of spam, none of the respondents could not evaluate. On average, approximate estimates of the response level sounded at 0,
In general, the study allows us to draw several conclusions.
Firstly, spam customers are fully aware that, having received several hits, they will incur the wrath of the rest of the mailing list (thousands and millions of people). Companies that resort to spam, as a rule, are very small, which allows them to believe that such concepts as reputation and a positive image are not for them.
Secondly, the cost of spamming is very small. However, none of the clients of spammers can adequately assess the effect of mailing lists, incl. possible negative effect. Similarly, spam customers do not attach much importance to the audience to which the mailings are sent. Spam is ordered according to the principle “if it is so cheap, then why not”.
Thirdly, for some respondent companies a formal ban on spamming was the reason they stopped ordering spam. This is due both to possible legal risks and to even greater damage to the reputation of these companies.
The study involved companies whose names were mentioned in the text of spam messages. Based on data from the anti-spam division of Kaspersky Lab, a list of 500 such companies was compiled. The proportions of the selection of future respondents according to their fields of activity were maintained in accordance with the proportions of various topics of spam on the Runet. The largest number of spam customers is accounted for by companies operating in the field of tourism and recreation (14%), providing repair and relocation services (9.3%) and engaged in printing (7%). Other less common categories were taken into account.
Interestingly, a sociological survey was conducted anonymously, using a very original methodology. The spam customer was called by an “employee of a small company” who allegedly also wanted to order a spam mailing list and asked the “colleagues” for advice. Of course, such a technique can not be called scientific, but in this case it was difficult to come up with something better.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4125/
All Articles