In the war on spam, are insurance companies victims or perpetrators as guilty as any Internet smut purveyor?
BY ARA C. TREMBLY
As someone who regularly dabbles in the latest technology developments, you would think minor inconveniences such as dealing with spam would be a mere bag o shells, to quote the redoubtable Ralph Kramden of The Honeymooners.
Yet, truth be told, I struggle just like everyone else to rid my screen of the daily annoyance of these unsolicited commercial e-mail messages. Of course, our network at National Underwriter Company screens for spam, and I use a spam filter in addition to that, yet a surprising amount of this detritus filters through. The disturbing part is, over time, it seems the spam filters become less and less effective, as spammers find new and ingenious ways to bypass them.
At a seminar during last years Comdex conference, Michael Osterman, president of Osterman Research Inc., said spam is a significant problem for businesses in that employees may each spend more than six working days a year dealing with the spam they receive.
While some 80 percent of organizations have some form of antispam technology in place, even protected employees will spend as much as 80 minutes per 1,000 e-mail messages (about 2.4 workdays a year) dealing with spam, he emphasized. Unprotected employees will spend about 200 minutes per 1,000 e-mail messages (6.1 workdays per year).
Troubling as these figures are, there is something that troubles me even more, and that is the amount of spam coming from insurance companies or agentsor fronts for them. Having to deal with porn-site come-ons, pain-pill pitches, and male-enhancement messages is one thing, but when the assaults come from within our own industry, this friendly fire is doubly hurtful. Hardly a day goes by when I dont receive e-mail from agents urging me to purchase homeowners insurance, life insurance, long-term care insurance, or a variety of related financial products.
Just yesterday, I received an e-mail from someone named Brian Williams (a stranger to me), who assumes I am an agent. He promises in his subject line I can be up to [my] arse in annuity apps! Williams, it seems, is willing to sell me a breakthrough marketing and advertising package for annuities that will deliver a boatload of affluent or wealthy seniors for a mere $89.95, instead of the full retail price of $289.95 (but only in the next two days). When the pile of applications reaches my arse, I suppose Ill know what to do with them.
Of course, not everyone who sends insurance spam is so brazen, but God help you if youre a consumer. A recent e-mail from Angel Hicks (whom, not surprisingly, I also do not know) says, We offer term life coverage at up to 70 percent off. It doesnt say who we are, or off what, but when you click the link for your free quote, you are taken to a site that says Term Quotes Life Insurance Companies of America, which claims it represents the top 200 life insurance carriers. You then are asked for personal informationlike whether youve ever had a heart attack, stroke, diabetes, or cancer. But what is this company? Where is it located? Who are its officers? The site does not say, but if you want that 70 percent off quote, youd better part with that personal, private information. HIPAA monitors, are you out there?
Certainly, Williams and Hicks are entitled to sell their wares. But if this is to be the standard, insurance companies, and agents in particular, should stop whining about their spam problems. In the war on spam, these entities are not only complicit with the enemy, they are the enemy.
I am amazed an industry as conservative and risk-averse as insurance would shoot itself in the foot by utilizing the same vulgar, invasive, and irritating tactics as Internet smut purveyors and prescription drug traffickers. In case you havent noticed, our industrys image with the public is not exactly warm and fuzzy. Can we really afford to irritate consumers further by sending these bothersome messages?
Wouldnt it be great, though, if the industry were the first to stand up and say, Were mad as hell, and were not going to take it anymore!? Wouldnt it bolster your faith in industry associations if they actually spoke out against the use of spam? It certainly would be a popular stand with consumers, and lets face it, how often does the insurance industry get to be popular with consumers?
How about it? Does this industry have the gumption to join the war against spamor are we destined to be perennially silent co-conspirators?
is technology editor for National Underwriters property/casualty and life/health editions. He may be reached at atrembly@nuco.com.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.