The 1 percent rule of spam?
A recent New York Times article proves just why spam is still so effective: the world contains enough computer-using knuckeheads to make it profitable.
How is it that someone is literate enough to actually use a computer system but too stupid to realise when they are obviously being conned? Viagra. Nigerian money. Penile enlargements. University diplomas. Pornography. Not to mention the latest phishing schemes.
Apparently, there's this "1% rule of the web" which states something along the lines of:
"89% of people will simply read the content on websites, another 10% will interact with that content in various ways and the remaining 1% will actually create the content."
Taking the New York Times statistics into consideration, I got thinking about adapting that rule into something like a "1% rule of spam", where:
"89% of people will simply ignore spam completely, another 10% will read the spam and then choose to ignore it, and the remaining 1% will ensure that spam continues to be profitable by stupidly clicking on whatever offer is preying on their greed, fear or insecurity at the time."
If we could all make a list of 99 other people we know, the odds are that on average, one of us is an idiot who's actually dumb enough to click on these emails. Is it someone at our work? Is it a friend? Or a neighbour perhaps? Or maybe even a family member?
If only we could find that one idiot and grab them by the scruff of the neck and shake them until their brain cells are re-arranged in such a way that they could actually be used.
Due to the large volume of spam, comments are disabled. If you have anything relevant to say, you can leave a comment via Twitter, or contact me directly.