Scenario: A businessman, eager to promote his services, collects the addresses of members of a network he belongs to. He sends them an electronic message inviting them to check out a new product. Some recipients take exception to the intrusion, leading to a vigorous debate about the businessman's ethics.
If you follow the email industry in 2011, you may recognize this scenario as the one that played out last month involving a businessman (Douglas Karr, CEO of DK New Media) and an offended recipient (Al Iverson, deliverability expert and anti-spam advocate). The argument that followed, which began on Twitter and continued in a Magill Report article, was about whether DK New Media's email to Iverson's address--which Karr obtained through their mutual LinkedIn connection--constituted spam.

1970 Monty Python sketch about SPAM, the meat product
But theirs was not a new debate. The question of "what constitutes spam" is older even than the use of the word "spam" to describe unsolicited commercial email, almost as old as the Internet itself.
In 1978, the word "internet" had not yet been made into a proper noun. It was an adjective, used in technical papers as shorthand for "internetworking." However, there was such a thing as email, on a network called ARPANET, which was the predecessor to the Internet-with-a-capital-I that we know today. ARPANET was established by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. It connected ARPA-sponsored researchers at universities and private corporations.
One corporation connected to ARPANET was Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). In 1978, a new model of DEC computer was available, and a DEC marketing executive thought ARPANET users would find it particularly interesting. All ARPANET-connected persons were listed in a printed(!) directory, so a DEC employee looked up all the West Coast addresses, typed them in, and sent them this message:
DIGITAL WILL BE GIVING A PRODUCT PRESENTATION OF THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY; THE DECSYSTEM-2020, 2020T, 2060, AND 2060T. THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY OF COMPUTERS HAS EVOLVED FROM THE TENEX OPERATING SYSTEM
AND THE DECSYSTEM-10 <PDP-10> COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE. BOTH THE DECSYSTEM-2060T
AND 2020T OFFER FULL ARPANET SUPPORT UNDER THE TOPS-20 OPERATING SYSTEM.
THE DECSYSTEM-2060 IS AN UPWARD EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT DECSYSTEM 2040
AND 2050 FAMILY. THE DECSYSTEM-2020 IS A NEW LOW END MEMBER OF THE
DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY AND FULLY SOFTWARE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER
DECSYSTEM-20 MODELS.
WE INVITE YOU TO COME SEE THE 2020 AND HEAR ABOUT THE DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY
AT THE TWO PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS WE WILL BE GIVING IN CALIFORNIA THIS
MONTH. THE LOCATIONS WILL BE:
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 - 2 PM
HYATT HOUSE (NEAR THE L.A. AIRPORT)
LOS ANGELES, CA
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1978 - 2 PM
DUNFEY'S ROYAL COACH
SAN MATEO, CA
(4 MILES SOUTH OF S.F. AIRPORT AT BAYSHORE, RT 101 AND RT 92)
A 2020 WILL BE THERE FOR YOU TO VIEW. ALSO TERMINALS ON-LINE TO OTHER
DECSYSTEM-20 SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ARPANET. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND,
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE NEAREST DEC OFFICE
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCITING DECSYSTEM-20 FAMILY.
In this retrospective by Brad Templeton, one can see several parallels between the 1978 DEC mailing and the 2011 DK mailing:
- The senders didn't think they were doing anything wrong. The DEC executive thought the ARPANET users would welcome hearing about a product designed with their needs in mind. Karr believed his LinkedIn network would welcome hearing about goings-on at his company, or else they wouldn't be connected to him.
- The network operators were not amused. A DoD administrator called DEC's message "A FLAGRANT VIOLATION." One university's system was taken down when the DEC mailing filled up the server's disk (at a time when disk space was much, much more scarce and expensive than today). Then, as in 2011, system administrators viewed unsolicited commercial email as a serious problem.
- Recipients' reactions were mixed, but tended towards angry. In his Twitter defense of his actions, Karr cited his mailing's high engagement metrics as evidence that not everyone took offense. And the DEC rep's actions were defended by at least one recipient as being more relevant than some of the birth announcements and other mail sent on ARPANET. But generally, unsolicited commercial email then, as now, was poorly received.
This last point illustrates a common cause of confusion for marketers: there is not a universally-accepted definition of spam. Attempts by governments to define spam for legal purposes have fallen short of the practical definitions used every day by ISPs in filtering incoming mail, and by recipients when deciding whether or not to click that "Report Spam" button.
Was Karr's message spam? Legally, under the CAN-SPAM act, perhaps not. But whatever you call it, it was a bad idea. If you have to argue about whether you have permission to send to someone, then for practical purposes, you should assume you don't have permission.
Marketers who only send mail to explicitly opted-in addresses tend not to get drawn into Twitter fights over their practices. And if your sending practices resemble those of DEC in 1978, then it's worth noting that their DECSYSTEM-20 mailing is widely regarded today as having been "the first spam." Don't let your mailing be the next spam.
Chris Broshears | Product Development