On 07/10/2011 2:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/6/2011 17:59, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> I meant if the advertiser pays for the medium on which its
>> advertising. I.e.,
>
> I would disagree with your definition of "spam". I propose that an
> advertisement is "spam" if the combination of targeting and delivery
> medium causes the effort/cost required to *not* respond to the ad to be
> larger than the expected (as in, "expected value" statistical idea)
> benefit of the ad. That is, when disposing of the unwanted spam costs
> you more than you gain by getting the occasional ad you respond to, it's
> spam.
>
Since I don’t buy anything in response to targeted advertising. I would 
say spam is all unsolicited mail, whether it is electronic, snail mail 
or just pops through your letter box.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message