Advertising and email advertising

Now, this part of the discussion pulls me directly into an unplanned area. That of the ethics of advertising. Advertising is informing one’s version of thoughts, ideas, products, plans, and creations.

Now who does advertising disturb? Well, it would disturb anyone who sees a potential competitor getting a means to advertise about his side. I remember my own sending a single email to a number of persons in Karnataka inviting them to join a particular business idea. At least a few people reacted quite angrily, saying that I would be taken to task for SPAMMING. I do receive around 15 to 30 spam letters everyday. However almost every one of them is received in the SPAM folder. A few odd ones that do enter my Inbox at times are the different ones from the ordinary ones. For all the hype about SPAM being a problem, the fact is that at times, I do get information on essential items and web addresses from these unsolicited commercial emails.  

Some ten years back, I was bothered by the immensity of these letters. For, they used to come directly into my Inbox. Now, the very efficient SPAM folders available along with all the email services do their work quite efficiently.

It is quite easy for a silly guy to demand legislation for each and every thing here. Each and every new legislation is not adding to the security of the people. But rather giving additional rights to the low quality official class to meddle in the affairs of the people. A single experience with the Indian police can be a livelong torment for most people who live in this geographical area. When this is the situation, demanding newer laws, when the earlier installed laws are still not be made use of in a civilised manner, is just advocating the devil’s cause.

For example, there is the rule in India that beating children in schools by the teachers is a capital crime as per court ruling. However has anyone heard of any teacher being taken to task for beating children?

Look at the above post that came on an Anti-Spam site: All that this man has to do is to mark that particular email as SPAMonce and that would end it. The argument would be that he has not time for that. Well the fact is that when he opens his TV or his newspaper, he would have to face a barrage of advertisements. He has no complaints. He is paying money to make use of them. So he can naturally put in a complaint that he does not want to be disturbed with advertisements. Yet, he wouldn’t. For, no one would listen to him. For, the advertisers are spending a huge amount of money to advertise their products. However, the feeling is that the persons who send commercial emails are not spending any money. It is not the truth. They are also spending much money, time and expertise for this purpose.

However, what would irk is that fact that a poor man can advertise as effectively as a rich man through the emails. That would really distress a rich businessman. He would want a terrible legislation that can send the poor man to jail. So that he has the field for himself. That in fact is the gist of hate for SPAM as of now. For, SPAM folders are doing a wonderful job, and there is no need for a terrible legislation for ending advertising. Without advertising economic activity can be stifled. And to limit the right to advertise to the rich is not a correct attitude.

The attitude is like this: For sending one letter, it would cost a definite amount of money. For sending, 10s of thousands of letters, it would cost an immensity of money. So using email for sending an immensity of letters is a misuse of the email system. Well, this argument has one flaw. Actually, even though emails can be called letters, when they are advertisements, they cease to be letters. They are advertisements, and to go through the inept logic of snail-mail versus email will not suit the discussion.

The commercials that come in the TV channels are definitely a great distraction. There is no legitimate reason that a viewer should be forced to view the advertisements that repeat every day. Actually, the viewer wouldn’t have a right to say anything in this matter in the old days, when TV broadcast was free and through the TV towers. Now, the viewers are paying customers. They do have a right say no to advertisements. However, nobody would. For, everyone has a remote control device that helps them change the channel when the commercials start. However if there had been no Remotes in their hands, it would have been plain mental torture.