More spam graphs

Ken Simpson, CEO of Mailchannels, was kind enough to give me permission to post their graph of spam and email volumes from September 1, 2010 through Jan 3, 2011.

Graph showing connections vs. accepted mail
Spam volumes decreased while delivered mail stayed constant
This chart also shows the trend of declining volumes of spam. There are some differences, though, which I think highlight how you get different pictures when looking at different data sources.
For instance, the amount of real mail (blue line) has remained relatively constant over the 4 month period. There was a slight decrease at the very end of the year, but generally real mail volumes stayed constant. Contrastingly, Senderbase shows that while the average daily spam volume fell from 257 billion emails per day to 92.4 billion emails a day and the average mail volume fell from 300 billion to 108 billion.
Each of the graphs I have posted over the last 2 days has a different way to measure and they are actually measuring very different things. I have some ideas on how Senderbase measures things, but I don’t know any of their specifics. I think they’re doing some direct measurement on their servers and using algorithms to extrapolate total volumes and total spam volumes. In contrast, Mailchannels does outbound mail filtering, so what they are measuring is the amount of mail sent by their customers. The CBL measures just volume into a spamtrap and so is a totally inaccurate way to measure real mail.
Given three totally disparate methods of measuring spam show a decrease, I’m pretty confident in saying that there was a real, measurable decrease in spam loads at the end of 2010. But that’s all I can say based on these data. The decrease may be temporary, it may not. Without understanding more I can’t even make any predictions. I will tell you this, though, I’m very interested in seeing what the graphs look like in a month.

Spam volumes in 2010
Social networks and bulk email

Related Posts

Best practices: a meaningless term

Chad White wrote an article for MediaPost about best practices which parallels a lot of thinking I’ve been doing about how the email marketing industry treats best practices.

Read More

The myth of the low complaint rate

I have been reading the complaints filed by Holomaxx and will have some analysis and information about them probably Monday or Tuesday next week. I’ve been keeping an eye on the press and something that Ken Magill said caught my eye.

Read More

Don't be Amelia

I have an adorable cat that I ‘taught’ that I would pet her if she tapped me on the arm or shoulder with her paw. It was cute for a while, but then she got more and more demanding. Eventually, she was clawing at my clothes and skin to get attention and petting.
It’s gotten to the point where I have to put a stop to it. She’s just getting too destructive to me and my clothing. So over the last two weeks I’ve been trying to only reward those touches that don’t involve claws and giving her a stern “NO CLAWS” when she does try to claw me.
As I was sitting here this afternoon, going through yet another round of NO CLAWS with her, I realized that my interactions with her were eerily similar to email marketing.
You see, Amelia started using her claws to get my attention because I didn’t always respond to her gentle taps. But claws hurt, and were a problem, so I would respond. This is exactly like marketers who don’t see a response to their email marketing campaigns and thus up the aggressiveness of those campaigns. More mail, more frequency, stronger offers, anything to get a response out of recipients.
Eventually, though, the recipient finally gets annoyed. The aggressive “taps” result in spam complaints. The sender has pushed the recipient from “it’s not so bad” to “make this sender stop bugging me.”
Email marketing is interruption marketing and there is only so much recipients will tolerate. And, trust me, few email marketers are as cute as my Amelia Cat.

Read More