On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:19:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

I would agree.  I define it as "advertising I didn't ask for".

Jim

Post a reply to this message