Effect of Email Fraud on Brand Image | Phishing and Spam

Phishing and spam: Is it damaging to the brand?

The Internet world is full of slimy tactics to attract consumers. It seems virtually impossible to regulate spam. The few companies who have proven successful in doing so are those that specialize in such.

With the Internet being so wide-open, investing in regulating all the hokey emails would turn in to a wild goose chase, with little results. I think if a company invests enough efforts in to building and maintaining their image, then consumers will be able to recognize that the phishing and spam is coming through a 3rd party channel and not let it tarnish their perception of the brand at all.

So in essence, brand management on the home-front is even more essential in preserving the brand’s image with the emergence of phishing and spamming.

Mike Poznansky, Marketing Manager - October 29, 2005

It is most definately not a case of all communication is good communication...if the communication comes from a credible source it is a different story.

Brands are tarnishing their images and losing brand equity as a result of SPAM. Consumers will most definitely become annoyed and directly associate this with the brand in question.

Gina Mcmorran, Student, University of Johannesburg - October 31, 2005

The most vulnerable brands are those that rely on internet activities for legitimate business - experience with eBAy and spam leaves me very dubious about ever using the legitmate service, for fear of having personal/financial details swiped: thus the damage to the brand is significant. I know eBay is not responsible for the spam, but I now don't trust any communications purporting to be from eBAy legitimate or otherwise, and therefore don't trust the brand - and THAT is a serious problem for any brand. Where internet activities are ancillary rather than fundamental to the business model, brand damage is likely to be lower. The question is what can those whose business is fundamentally predicated on internet services do about it? The answer cannot be "nothing" - the movie houses have (largely succesfully) fought against piracy for years - this is not dissimilar.

Timothy Pratt, CMO, MedNet Solutions - October 31, 2005

I get a feeling Spam was called Spam for a reason. Like its artificially processed namesake, it's a low-grade, poor man's substitute that should be fed unrelentingly to the waste dispoal unit (or trash can if you've got an apple.) No matter how many times it's served up in front of you (in ever more intriguing and ingenious guises) it still makes you feel a bit sick.

Now Smash...now there's a completely different story. Give me aliens and fluffy white potato packets anyday.

Phil White, Strategy & Planning Director, Communique 360 - October 31, 2005

I agree that Spam can damage a lot of brands -- purely through the ever-developing negative associations.

I also feel that too many claims are being made for the sales and promotional efficacy of the Internet (by vested interests mainly) whilst many people's experience remains highly negative. Phishing HAS affected how we view the security of the system. Maybe we should remember that originally the Internet idea was as an Information Superhighway. This is still where it scores over anything else.

However I fear this estimable ideal has been hi-jacked -- but probably that was inevitable.

But e-Bay and amazon have proved that you CAN build a reputable brand on the Internet -- but how many others are there -- and how many will spend the time, effort and money to do it? At best I think the internet will be remain a supportive role to other media, despite the claims being made. Providing information supportive to the main thrust of the branding function and the system works, 'Your on-line brochure' is how I have always regarded it.

Norman Clark, Principal, Associates In Training - November 1, 2005

I have no doubt there are enterprising programmers developing ways to eliminate the problem as we speak. My larger concern is your brand strategy is so fragile that you consider this generic nuisance to be a threat to its effectiveness.

Regarding your disturbing suggestion that “all communication is good communication”: shall we be reduced to dysfunctional syllogisms?
All communication is good. All people communicate. Therefore all people are good.

Let’s not choose ignorance.

Robin Uchida, Uchida Inc. - November 2, 2005

Yes i think spam is not only an irritant but also a bdan mollifier. When a customer visits a brand site and is popped with nusances, the brand loses the customer attention and inetrest for a some time. The purpose for which the customer had entered the site is blocked at the stage go and this speaks of the brand's prioroties and target wrt to the customers.

sudha, IBM - November 3, 2005

Internet as a medium is huge, and to make marketing in this medium more complicated, users are diverse. Convergence has changed the ways products/services were mass marketed earlier. Even though technology is permitting us to reach out to these potential consumers, convergence has not yet given us a flexibility to choose or demarcate the desired target audience from this huge base and hence spamming occurs.

For a saturated/consumer pull (need based) business (banking, loan, certain other service sectors), this form of marketing, looking for new consumers, is a huge sucess (even if the conversion ratio is 1 in 1000s or even 10000s) but for a niche/premium product; spamming would be quite dangerous and would destroy the brand at initial stage.

But to conclude spamming provides brand with high visibility (which might be considered good by some brand managers) and not the relevant visibility which all the brand managers should look for.

Diwakar Joshi, Marketing Executive, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. - November 3, 2005

Well when the subject of a mail says 'enlarge yours', i know these jokers are not serious about what they are doing! However it's surprising that some big established brands do not pay heed to the damage that's done by one spam mail!! I think one spam mail can out-do what years of interaction with the brand would have done to an individual!

Phishing and spam is just use of one medium. All communication is good communication is plaguing advertisers. What with ads going on when there is news about Katrina devastation or tsunami or human banners being put up on the riad with kids holding them under scorching sun!!!! Will the brand custodians wake up and not compromise positive affinity towards brand with awareness!

Ajay Naqvi, Regional Business Director - November 7, 2005

Tonight I spent 30 minutes unsubscribing from various SPAM messages. This will reduce the number I receive each day for about a week. Then I'll be back to 300- 400 a day. SPAM is a waste of time. I will not look at it so it doesn't matter what brand is presented. The vast majority of my friends are the same way.

If companies really want to reach the consumers, this is not the way. Sending unsolicited messages promising free stuff is a joke. It's never truly free!

Anonymous - November 7, 2005

Way back in my early days in Direct Marketing we always used to answer the question as to why our mailboxes were full of junk mail. The answer was, of course, that it worked. One can only assume that there are still enough positive responders out there, to make Spam worthwhile. Until we all become convinced that trash is trash, I fear the exercise will continue.

Norman Clark, Principal, Associates In Training - November 8, 2005

Can spam 'cut through'?

Phishing preys on those of us who cannot differentiate between the brand (and its tone of voice) and the approximations of the spammers.

It is therefore essential that big brands strenuously establish a story, a brand promise and a tone that sticks in the minds of their consumers. Then we will all know when we are being baited!

ServantofChaos - November 10, 2005

It is reasonable that the audience (public) does not identify important brands as issuers of SPAM, but in any way the reiterative receipt of the brand by the user will negatively affect its perception. On the other hand, in some way, it shows a loss of control of the companies over their brands, and therefore it would be reasonable to make a big effort in avoiding their use in this way (such as it would be done with whichever other misuse of the brand in publicity actions).

Diego Garcia Diaz, Creative Director, GDS Branding - November 10, 2005

Yes it should be stopped from spoiling the brand image as it is undesirable when the client is having separate mindset. Penetration of branding should be in a proper manner not like communicating with a doctor about manufacturing of iron rod.

Makrand Bhagwat, Admintrator, Nict - November 11, 2005

I think that bombarding us with spam is damaging to a brand. Personally it would be one reason to steer clear of any brand that I notice popping up in my inbox. I think it is just as damaging as cold calling someone's house, only easier for the consumer to ignore!

Pana, Marketing and Advertising Student, London Institute - November 11, 2005

The sole mechanism of spam conotates such a negative that regardless of the strength of the brand dilution occurs at the mere instance the message arrives on your screen. Maybe the right tactic is a brand that aligns with the treatment and control of spam. 'Nike against spam.'

MDC DIrector of Marketing - November 12, 2005

Every technology has both sides of its coin. Internet, god of information, also has its own disadvantages.

Information about a brand, which is not desirable, is also communicated to the customers and hence affects brand image and equity of the brand.

Consider Viagra being sold at a discount or any other premium product sold at a discount via a SPAM mail. It directly contradicts with the positioning aspects of that premium brand that an organisation plans to have. Similarly, it directly affects other branding strategies being planned by the company. Thus, such spam mails could be detrimental to the brand.

But is that always true? One needs to moot on this issue as, though undesirable, such mails help in creating awareness about a newly launched brand of a new brand feature. This can be used as a cost effective method in gaining attention of the customer in a short span of time.

But again, one need to have a fine balance between pros and cons of such a method of information distribution. Innovative methods can be used for information dissipaton down the line whereby there is no effect on any aspect of branding process.

Mohit Bahri, Student, Symbiosis Institute of International Business, Pune, India - November 13, 2005

Spam makes the brand seem desperate. Phishing makes the brand look like the victim of some 16 year old hacker. I would rather have my brand seem like a victim than desperate -- it leaves the door open to play on customer service and security issues, not too mention it makes for a great opportunity to connect with the customer on a more personal level.

Margaux, Owner/designer, Lightminer - November 15, 2005

spamming is definetly the outcome of desperate companies trying to break through the clutter and getting the consumers to sit up and take notice of their product.

Instead of focussing their attention on how to counter competition, why not look at looking at communicating to the consumers from their point of view. if i were a consumer who was to be bombarded with mails, i would probably have killed those guys. i think too much of intrusion into the private space of a consumer will only increase their dissonance with the brand. Look at the communication methods of "Blair Witch Project" or maybe a "nokia engage". I think that is something that could probably be termed as innovative as well as engaging.

Abhishek Kumar, student, Symbiosis Institute of International Business, Pune, India - November 21, 2005

One man's spam is another man's brand message.

Robert Steers, Marketing Manager, WSROC - November 21, 2005

I think Spams should just be BANNED !!!

Swati Poddar, Marketing, WebEx Communications - November 22, 2005

There IS such a thing as bad publicity. For example with all of the Viagra/10 inch spam on the net the Viagra brand loses control of its image. It's still looked on as the first solution to a big problem (wink), but then its user is now looked at as a porn-fiend or a loser.