The National Foundation for Women Legislators became interested in my unconventional decision
not to utilize Spam techniques as Director of Marketing for a national Internet company (and to employ only strict
Permission Marketing practices) and asked me to testify about Spam at the US Capitol in June 2001.

TOM ROSS INVITED TO TESTIFY BEFORE MEDIA AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE

Washington D.C., June 1, 2001: Today Private Sector Co-Chair Nominee, Tom Ross, testified before the Media and Information
Technology Policy Committee in Washington D.C. on the subject of consumer privacy and, in particular, 'Spam'.

A portion of Mr. Ross' remarks appears below.

• • • • • • •

Hearing Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Friday, 6|1|01, 8:28am
Called to Testify: Tom Ross Private Sector Co-Chair Nominee

"Good morning, Madame Chairwoman and thank you for allowing me to address the House Subcommittee on Media and Information Technology. My name is Tom Ross and I am the Director of Marketing for a web infrastructure company in the private sector. As Director of Marketing, it is my job to get our product brands in front of as many consumers as possible, as often as possible, so that when our product offerings match their buying cycle we'll have adequate mind share. I'm here today to talk about Unsolicited Commercial Email or "Spam" and that it works—very well. In fact, the number of leads that such campaigns generate is limited only by the number of emails sent out—the larger the net—the larger the catch. It's an extremely low cost vehicle for any marketing arsenal that can get brand names in front of hundreds of thousands—even millions—of consumers instantly.

Our company has all of the technology and expertise necessary to conduct these massive 'Spam' campaigns. But we don't. Never have. Never will—as long as I am overseeing our marketing efforts. We have made a conscious decision not to Spam and, as the leading educators in the Radio/Internet space, we teach all of our station-clients not to Spam as well. Not only because it's distasteful to consumers—it is—we've all spent too much time deleting this junk email—but, because we've found a better way to generate higher and more qualified leads than Spamming. It's called Permission Marketing. And, because it is personalized, anticipated and relevant to the recipient, it raises the bar on Internet etiquette. Visitors to our site or at our tradeshows "Opt-In" to receive communications from us—they give us "Permission" to contact them and consequently, the ratio of turning leads to sales can exceed that of Spamming significantly. Again-Spam works—but it is invasive and there are better, more respectful ways to generate leads for sales.

That's why I'm here to support House Resolution 718—the 'Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001' which aims to protect individuals and families from Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail - or Spamming. I'm here today to make the committee aware that there are alternative methods of lead generation out there to combat the proponents of Spamming when they rebut in favor of its economic potential to American business. We don't have to sacrifice etiquette, electronic or otherwise to generate revenue in this arena. Thank you."