Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does spam make money?
Executive summary
Spam operators profit by sending extremely large volumes of low-cost messages and relying on tiny response rates — studies show response rates as low as 1 in 12.5 million but still enough to produce daily revenue when scaled across botnets and networks [1]. Researchers and economists estimate gross revenues for spam-advertised merchants in the low hundreds of millions per year while the broader economic cost to firms and consumers runs much higher [2].
1. The math of “spray and pray”: tiny conversion × massive scale
Spammers accept microscopic conversion rates because the cost per sent message is vanishingly small; one controlled botnet experiment sent ~350 million emails and recorded only 28 sales, yet still generated roughly $100/day — proof that tiny payouts per recipient become profitable when multiplied across millions of messages [1]. MailChannels explains the same principle: send millions of emails at very low cost and harvest the small percentage of recipients who engage or buy [3]. Global traffic figures underline why scale matters: roughly half of all email traffic in recent years has been classified as spam, so the volume available to exploit is enormous [4].
2. Multiple revenue streams: direct sales, affiliate cuts, and criminal services
Available sources describe several clear commercial models. The simplest is direct advertising: spam links to merchant sites (often dubious pharmacies, adult offers, gambling, crypto, or work‑from‑home scams) that convert a tiny fraction of clicks into purchases [5]. Other models in the literature include affiliate and lead‑generation payments — spammers refer buyers to merchants and take a cut — and organized networks where merchant, distributor (botnet operator), and spammer roles are specialized [3] [2]. The American Economic Association paper documents this specialization and estimates how these actors capture gross revenues on the order of $200 million annually [2].
3. Botnets and infrastructure lower costs and raise reach
Technical infrastructure matters: botnets of compromised machines (bots) send spam at scale, distributing the workload across thousands of IPs and lowering the marginal cost of each mailed message, a key reason spammers can make a few sales pay [5] [1]. MailChannels and SitePoint reporting emphasize that spammers use networks and automation to stay adaptive and resilient; the economics depend on these low-cost distribution channels [3] [1].
4. Externalities: big losses for everyone else
Economists estimate that while spammers and spam-advertised merchants may gather a few hundred million in revenue, the external costs to firms and consumers — lost productivity, IT expenses, security remediation — are far larger, on the order of tens of billions annually in the U.S. alone according to historical costing studies cited by researchers [2] [6]. In short, the private gains of spammers are small relative to the social and corporate burdens they create [2].
5. Why spam persists despite filters and low response rates
Multiple sources make the same point: even near-zero response rates don’t kill the business because the economics are one of volume and low unit cost — and because defenders (email providers, filters) never reach perfect blocking. MailChannels and tech trade reporting note the continuing arms race: providers improve filters while spammers adapt tactics such as snowshoeing (spreading volume over many IPs/domains) to evade detection [3] [5] [7]. Statista’s traffic numbers show spam remains a persistent share of total email, reinforcing that defenses have reduced but not eliminated the issue [4].
6. What the numbers actually say — cautious interpretation
Different sources give different magnitudes: the AEA paper estimates gross revenues around $200 million/year for spam-linked merchants [2], while small botnet experiments show daily revenues of a few hundred dollars from an individual controlled botnet [1]. Available sources do not mention precise modern profit margins for specific spam campaigns or up‑to‑the‑minute totals, so extrapolations must be cautious — the industry is heterogeneous and adaptive (not found in current reporting).
7. Takeaway for readers and businesses
The practical reality is clear: spam makes money because cheap distribution plus specialization delivers enough sales or leads to justify the effort, even at vanishingly small conversion rates [1] [3]. The broader harm — costly cleanup, lost productivity, and consumer fraud — vastly exceeds the private take of spammers, a mismatch economists highlight when recommending policy and technical defenses [2]. Defenders should keep improving filters and organizational practices because the economic incentives for spammers remain intact as long as scale and low costs persist [3] [5].