I just read an interesting article about how recruiters need to stop sending "spam", because it lowers the value of the whole profession.  Partly true!  Nonetheless, I am pretty picky with my use of words, so I have offered the obvious rebuttal that I think needs and deserves to be made, in all fairness.

Here is the article:  http://recruitingdaily.com/why-its-time-to-can-recruiting-spam-fore...

Here is my response (although I haven't double-checked my calculations, but the point is that an error of one magnitude [a factor of 10] would still result in the same conclusions):

Generally-agreed upon facts: (1) The monetary value of ALL spam in the world per year is about $200 million <http: www.theatlantic.com="" technology="" archive="" 2012="" 08="" all-the-spammers-in-the-world-may-only-make-200-million-a-year="" 260814=""/> ; (2) the monetary value of Executive Search/Headhunting is about $20 billion per year <https: fred.stlouisfed.org="" series="" revef56131allest=""> ; (3) Email that is valuable and well-targeted is not SPAM.

You are asking me to believe that email is not an effective recruiting technique because (1) you fail to define spam accurately, (2) have no idea of the value of recruiting email, which is many many times more valuable than actual spam, and (3) insist that it is worthless to readers and recipients.

I totally disagree. Email is a great tool in any recruiter's kit. Whereas, what you are falsely implying is that viagra ads and so forth are the literary equivalent of job ads for Post-Doc students who will be earning $120K per year starting salary.

The volume of "spam" generated by recruiters (which is not spam, but even if it were) is about 0.01% of all purported spam -- but has a value 100x the value of ALL the spam in the world combined. This means that the average recruiter email is worth 100,000x what a typical piece of "spam" email is worth.

Calling a recruiting email "spam" is seriously similar to calling a diamond "a piece of carbon" -- superficially true, but neglecting the value of diamonds vs. other types of carbon. True, a diamond is carbon, but, by weight, is worth about the same as the ratio of the value of recruiter email to that of actual spam. For instance, a ton of coal is worth about $50, while a diamond is worth about $1400 per carat (a carat is a fifth of a gram). A pound is 453.6 grams, so a gram of coal would be worth 0.005 cents. The ratio of the value of a diamond to an equal weight of coal is 1400 divided by 0.001 or 1,400,000 to 1. So, yes, if you want to compare diamonds to coal; but isn't that really poor salesmanship?

This whole recruiting spam conversation is nonsense, if merely because there is no precision in your use of words. Meanwhile, I've found email recruiting to be highly effective, and receive many compliments on my emails from extremely distinguished candidates, even when they are not interested in the jobs discussed in the email, but because they find my emails extremely informative. I've won multiple awards for my recruiting, and I've billed $5 million by now, with much success and acclaim. I guess I'm not buying your story, mostly because it isn't true.

Maybe you just aren't any good at email recruiting.... I've certainly received a lot of 'crap' recruiter email myself, and I know what I don't like about it. But, my email is not like that, because I only represent the most interesting and exciting opportunities.