I thought Spam went out of fashion?

As consumers we have the not inconsiderable burden of choosing where to spend our money. This dilemma is presented on a daily basis as we go about normal pursuits and routines. A sizeable faction of retailers and salesman are not content with letting the money fall from our purse in good time however, they instead feel that the only way to secure our hard earned cash is with a brute force approach.

As a child I remember seeing junk mail pile through the letterbox, only to be thumbed through and discarded. I always found it amazing that companies who spent a small fortune sending out thousands of unsolicited letters could make it worth their while. Presumably enough people must have been signing up for credit cards and cash prize puzzle competitions to cover the cost of the vast amounts of paper that end up in the bin. At least in this sector the evident underlying profitability of the operation provides some reassurance of the senders logic (providing we swerve the environmental hot potato on where all the waste paper goes).

Of course the modern age has heralded modern methods of purveying mass commercial plugging. The birth of 'SPAM' email is considered to be in 1978 when the same email was sent to 300 recipients without being personalised as was the trend at the time. Of course this made those diligently watching their inboxes more than a little upset. How dare the sender on this magical new system not take the time to write something which was addressed to them by name and had some relevance to what they might be interested in? If only they knew what was to come. By 1988 the first chain mail reared its head, "Make money fast" bore all the hallmarks of SPAM to come.

Unsolicited bulk email now makes up 80-85% of all emails sent worldwide. To this end both individuals and corporates spend significant time and money to filter out this bulk of chaff, to leave them with a workable system for communication. There is a worldwide contemptuous attitude towards such mail, with even the less internet-savvy individuals being able to spot most scam or promotional emails a mile off and send it reeling off into the ever-present Junk folder.

So how and why do the senders persist? Re-applying the metric of profit from the Junk postal mail story, it is reasonable to assume at least a few recipients must offer their wallets. What is different with email is the cost per send for the Spammer. With little or no overhead and the ability to be invisible as a sender, even one or two sign-ups from 2 million mail outs proves to be a good day at the office.

The only real solution is for the Internet community to form consensus and crack down on what is heralded as a free, easy and cheap solution for global communication. A strict opt-in service for inbox owners or lock-down of acceptable recipients would go some way to cleaning up our daily e-post bag. I am not sure the problem will ever go away, but with spending on combating SPAM estimated at upwards of £150 per Business user per year, can we really afford not to tackle the root cause?

Calculate the cost of SPAM to your Business with this nifty calculator... http://www.commtouch.com/spam-cost-calculator

The Great Carrier Bag Scandal

In a time of unprecedented ecological concern and constant reminders to be green, we as the UK general public have made a respectable stab at washing out our jam jars and turning down our thermostats. Whilst there will always be gaping holes in the sustainable practise of the nation with old-school industry and air-conditioned office blocks, the last few years have seen a conspicuous improvement in the attitude of consumers towards waste. Most importantly, we seem to still be happy enough, perhaps demonstrating that consumption and waste is not the only source of enjoyment in Western society.

In fact the recent drive to be "green" from both manufacturers and our peers has spawned a die-hard elite of frugalists and return of the 'make do and mend' brigade. The old British adage has been revived in a recent BBC remake where handy sowers and resourceful cooks provided lessons on how to reduce waste and save money.

The combination of belt-tightening and the dawning revelation that we might be actually be knackering the planet has prompted the almost ubiquitous 'war on carrier bags'. Once a time where triple bagging heavy items was actively encouraged by the teenage checkout assistant, punters now have to wrestle a few measly bags from the attendant just so they can get their products out the door. Instead loyalty points and growing sense of smugness are provided as recompense for bringing your own scrumpled carriers or buying into the bag for life scheme. All in all, a sustainability success you might say.

So how is it that logic still evades us in such glaring ways in other areas? I recently saw a pile of Argos catalogues which had made their way half a mile down a high street and subsequently been rained on providing enough material to create a sizeable papier mache sculpture. I am presuming that the culmination of 3000 pages of printed product adverts was not used before being discarded, instead providing a massive waste of energy and effort. What's more someone has to then be paid to clean it up.

Levels of product packaging seem to have also escaped the chop. Apart from my annoyance with the fact it often takes me 20 minutes to wrestle open stubborn plastic blister packs, there is simply no need to wrap things 4 times in a packagers almanac of different materials. Some of the worst offenders are listed over on Business Insider, with my personal favourite being individually wrapped bananas...

All this makes me worry that it doesn't really matter whether I only use one sheet of toilet paper, or whether I get some nectar points for bringing a smelly carrier bag for my shopping. In the grand scheme of things it feels like we need to do a lot more if we are serious about not living in a planet-wide rubbish dump before the next century.