|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Internet Marketing Digest 0425
Internet Marketing discussion mailing list
Digest #0425
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is moderated by Glenn Fleishman <[email protected]>
For info about the list, send INFO INTERNET-MARKETING to [email protected]
Send posts to [email protected]
To UNSUBSCRIBE send any text to [email protected]
To switch to single mail message mode (rather than digest) send
SET INET-MARKETING MAIL NOACK to the address [email protected]
To switch back to digest mode, send: SET INET-MARKETING MAIL DIGEST
Complete list archives: <http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this digest:
Unsolicited Email Debate (John DeChello <76771.1072@compuserve.com>)
Re: Bulk e-mail to associations? (karl@ksme.net (Karl S. Erbland))
Re: News releases ([email protected] (John Shinnick))
Re: AOL mail problems ([email protected])
Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0424 ([email protected] (Jon Bonne))
Re: Bulk e-mail to associations? (marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris))
Re: Corporate resistance to the Internet ([email protected] (Tom Cunniff))
Re: Unsolicited Email Debate (Kevin Littlejohn
<darius@reverie.interworld.com.au>)
Legislating Cyberspace (marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris))
New Internet marketing e-book ([email protected] (Al Bredenberg))
Re: Becoming Popular on the Web (hoffman@colette.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu (Donna
Hoffman))
Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0423 ([email protected] (Stacey Curtis))
Query: What actually works? ("Curt A. Monash" <[email protected]>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 07:29:14 -0700
From: John DeChello <76771.1072@compuserve.com>
Subject: Unsolicited Email Debate
Bob Gaskins writes:
>>I will grant you that legislating against unsolicited email is an
attractive idea. But our US government has demonstrated time and again that
it isn't satisfied to stop legislating until it has legislated all the
power it can grab. And it has proven over and over that it cannot (will
not?) limit itself. Today it may be email. Tomorrow it may be your
religion. Or what books you're permitted to read. Or how many children
you're allowed to have. Or which side of the street you may live on. Or
your haircut. Or what products you're allowed to market.<<
Sorry, Bob, but IMO that argument is seriously overused, and in danger of
becoming less effective because of its abuse, regarding everything from the
internet to guns to cigarettes. Unfortunately, besides being overused, I don't
think it really applies here. ( I think we would all agree Senator Exon's
efforts are incredibly naive at best -- he has confused private BBS's for the
internet; he thinks the net belongs to the U.S., etc. -- but that's another
discussion). Where this argument falls short is that Glenn's suggestion doesn't
have anything to do with suppressing free speech or the_ content_ of the
unsolicited email. It has to do with the intrusion and cost of the email
itself, whether or not it even has contents. When someone wants to call you
collect via telephone, they need to get your permission first, since it will
cost you, the recipient, to receive it. Why should email be any different? If
that same person, calling collect, claimed his/her First Amendment rights were
being violated by your refusal to accept the charges, it would never stand up in
court. The same goes for wasting my fax paper, toner, and tying up my fax line
with an unsolicited fax. I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring anything
because of content, just in the way that it is delivered -- it costs the
recipient money, and as a potential recipient, I don't give anyone permission to
spend my money so they can advertise to me (even if it is as low as a few
cents).
Just my opinion (even if it is as low as a few cents).
John DeChello
Internet Marketing and Copy Writing Services
(203) 934-3162
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 07:33:54 -0700
From: karl@ksme.net (Karl S. Erbland)
Subject: Re: Bulk e-mail to associations?
>Because people haven't
>asked for the info, this practice still makes me a little queasy, but the
>uniformly positive response to it and the client's enthusiasm for doing
>more of the same gave me second thoughts.
>
What makes me "queasy" are the (pardon my french, especially if you are one
of them) goofballs that do whatever they can to get back at you. I have been
especially bothered by those who then want to put you into the spam "hall of
shame." What pain and waste.
I delete, also. That's what the button on the keyboard is set up to do. If I
am "overwhlemed" with unwanted mailings by a single sender then I write a
"take me off your list" letter. If that doesn't work I ask them what their
worst fear would be and then I get 13 people to make it come true. It's
worth the price.
As marketers on the Internet we must have the ability to solicit without
invitation. It is true that we probably could use some loosely accepted
cultural rules, but not the ones that say "no, no, no you can't do that."
- ----------
I once sent out a single unsolicited e-mail to ONE person/company. That
single person made sure I was told in no uncertain terms that I was evil and
proceeded to send me thousands of the same message.
By the way, that person worked for an Internet "non-profit" organization
which always is soliciting for funds. I cut my contributions and thanked he
and his organization for excercising my mailer. The "find all with..."
command worked really well.
- --
Karl S. Erbland Internet: [email protected]
KSME/Business Groups [email protected]
135 S. Washington - Second Floor karl@ksme.net
Tiffin, OH 44883-2841
Phone 419-448-0100 Ext 5 Voice 419-448-0100 Ext 0 FAX
WWW - http://www.sims.net/ksme
WWW - http://www.sims.net/linx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 07:41:52 -0700
From: [email protected] (John Shinnick)
Subject: Re: News releases
>>From: [email protected] (Daniel P Dern)
>>Subject: Re: Bulk e-mail discussion
>
>How do you feel about receiving unsolicited press
>releases rather than solicitations? As a freelance writer, I welcome them
>(eagerly), but I wonder how others feel. One of my contracts wishes me to
>begin sending press releases by e-mail in addition to fax, but knowing how
>people feel about unsolicited e-mail, I'm cautious (These releases mainly
>involve commercial sites for select corporate clients, so far two motion
>picture sites, one for the television show ReBoot, one for a city-wide pizza
>delivery site).
>
News releases have to do with news and should be sent to publications and
other broadcast media that can actually publish them. Sending news releases
to people who are not able to use them is akin to sending advertisements.
An ad's an ad in the right context and calling it a news release won't
change that.
While we're on this thread, I'd like to touch on faxes, which someone else
touched on yesterday or a couple days ago. I send out 800 to 1000 faxes
every month and have only once in the past year received a request that a
fax number be removed from my data base. I think the critical thing with
faxes or e-mail messages is whether or not they have any value to the
person receiving them. If I get e-mail that fits what I'm doing, I never
object to it. If I get some twit trying to sell me paint or hubcaps or his
online services I feel very different about the message and the messenger.
The point is that you have to be honest with the object of your marketing
plan, you've got to contribute to their program, and you should not
contribute to their problems in any way. With these criteria, you then need
to get your message across, and your message should have some call to
action. It's not easy to do, at least not do well.
John Shinnick |Media Wave Magazine
Editor/Publisher |The Magazine of the New Media
e-mail [email protected] |[email protected]
snail-mail #580, 916 W. Broadway, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, V5Z 1K7 |Ph/Fax: 604-875-1942.
Desktop Publishing ... Multi-Media ... Internet Publishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 10:57:37 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AOL mail problems
Glen, and the rest of the list ....
AOL fixed the mail problems as of yesterday, Wednesday 8-23 7pm. I have been
in contact with their internet mail system administrator, who credits us for
helping debug the problems. Sorry, I had to include the plug ;-).
All undeliverable messages will bounce back, and all listserve mail will be
delivered to all recipients. This is what *wasn't* happening for the last
week. Another obstacle --> OVERCOME!
- --Sanford Wallace
Promo Enterprises
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 10:59:40 -0700
From: [email protected] (Jon Bonne)
Subject: Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0424
>In my view, the biggest problem on the Net is finding anything. Or, from
>the point-of-view of a commercial enterprise on the Net, being found by
>anyone. There are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of
>web sites. How can one of them to stand out, even if its is willing to
>spend significant amounts of money on advertising?
>My opinion is that we haven't even seen all the possible solutions to the
>commercial company's problem of being found by their target audience on
>the Net, much less had an opportunity to evaluate their success.
I'd argue that it's easy to overlook two very important factors:
1) Presence on the Net in general. I think that it's crucial not only
for a company to position itself in places where random users can be pulled
in, but to also have its employees engage themselves in the various corners
of the Net where potential consumers might be found. Part of the appeal of
a company on the Net, I think, is having Net users who might have a use for
the company feel that there are real people there who have an interest in
what they do and who are willing to contribute their own personal share to
the information exchange,
2) While online advertising is great, I think that it's got to be part
of a larger structure that includes linking a company's online resources to
its real-world presence. This includes advertising, marketing, promotions,
and product recognition. One of the few things that has impressed me about
Zima's online efforts is that they're willing to tie their online presence
in extensively with their other efforts, even placing their email address
on the bottle. The net effect of this (or is it the Net effect?) is
hopefully a symbiotic relationship in which the placement of online
addresses and such in traditional efforts helps build site traffic - and
generally, enhances the public's perception of the Net as the next media
realm - while the online efforts help sell a product.
Some random thoughts on Windows 95 Day,
Jon Bonne
Web Overseer [whip in hand]
Advertising Media Internet Center (http://www.amic.com)
______________________________________________________________
Jon Bonne
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.telmar.com
http://www.phantom.com/~jbonne
http://www.phantom.com/~jbonne/tarantinoworld
"As in real life, I have never really been interested in people who are
wavering, who don't know what they like, who don't know what they
value. "
-Hal Hartley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:02:40 -0700
From: marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris)
Subject: Re: Bulk e-mail to associations?
Karl S. Erbland said:
> As marketers on the Internet we must have the ability to solicit without
> invitation.
Ummm.... Why "must" we have the ability to solicit without invitation?
Why must we have the right to invade someone else's space and make
ourselves heard, regardless of whether we are in real space or cyberspace?
This smacks of the shotgun approach to marketing. The shotgun approach
has limited viability on the Internet where niches and reputation are king.
What we "must" do is evolve our marketing methods to the audience at
hand. This means throwing away some of the tried and true techniques
that work in the external world.
Personally, I will shamelessly solicit people. How? By writing interesting
and controversial responses that make them ask questions. Then when
I subliminally stick in the comment that I have a book or talk going
on, people listen. I don't plug myself or my products every time I write
a comment. I market myself effectivly by building a reputation or
"brand name" if you will.
Marketing will become increasingly public relations oriented instead of
psychologically manipulating responses in the Internet marketing realm.
Mary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:04:10 -0700
From: [email protected] (Tom Cunniff)
Subject: Re: Corporate resistance to the Internet
Peter H. Lemieux wrote:
>Our business is providing turnkey solution packages to organizations wishing
>to connect to the Net ... We've been pretty successful in getting in the door
>(but) we now believe a deeper, and more pernicious problem faces us: the fear
>among senior management about the "threats" posed by an Internet connection.
>how can this negative media image be overcome?(...) how might we devise a
>marketing strategy (..) that helps build a company-wide consensus within
>potential client firms that, despite the problems it might pose, connecting to
>the Internet will on balance benefit their businesses?
In all my years in advertising, I have rarely witnessed anything more
fruitless than attempting to use advertising to combat corporate paranoia.
Save your money. Instead, seek out companies who are predisposed to buying.
Can you convert someone who's already using a competitors' product?
Undercut their price, or offer the first two months free.
Write articles for the local business press. Make some speeches. Let people
know you're out there, and they'll probably seek you out.
Evangelism may get you to heaven, but in cases like these, you're likely to
pass Chapter 11 on the way :-)
Best regards,
Tom Cunniff
President, CIA
Cunniff Interactive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:07:28 -0700
From: Kevin Littlejohn <darius@reverie.interworld.com.au>
Subject: Re: Unsolicited Email Debate
I'm not going to quote anything, but the question I have to ask regarding
legislating against various behaviours on the internet is this:
Who do you charge?
There is no way at all to verify that an identity given in any message is
valid, or truthful. Do we start charging the apparent sender of mail?
If so, what happens when someone takes a dislike to my provider or me, and
forges a post in my name? Do I then have to face court action?
(And in which country? Australia and America apparently have exportation
agreements, does this mean that our freedom-of-speech laws are now
decided in America?)
KevinL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:35:59 -0700
From: marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris)
Subject: Legislating Cyberspace
I've read the latest legislative suggestions about unsolicited email,
and I'd like to ask a question or two here.
First of all, as someone already pointed out, the Internet is global,
laws are local to a country. They aren't any more enforcable than
copyright laws are through conventional legal methods.
For those that are creative enough to circumvent the legal system,
I forsee the same situation that our "beloved" Canter&Siegal encountered.
If it is illegal to do something in one country, go outside that
country. (Note: the CancelMoose program that stopped C&S originated
in Finland or there abouts). C&S take the opportunity every time they
get press attention to rail against this problem. We have some of the
most legally creative marketeers banging their head up against the
legal boundries. What makes us think that just because there is a
law, the problem will go away. Did the US drug problem go away after
enough laws and subsequent enforcement?
As much as I don't like the vigilante concept, I do think that we need
to stay away from mixing real world social actions and those in
cyberspace. In the interim, until a goverment or social unity occurs,
moral pressure is the only thing we can depend on.
Mary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 12:54:21 -0700
From: [email protected] (Al Bredenberg)
Subject: New Internet marketing e-book
Fellow Internet marketers:
I'm now releasing my new electronic book,"The Small Business Guide to
Internet Marketing." This book has received enthusiastic reviews from
several members of this discussion group. You can read some of their
comments at my Web site.
This new non-technical resource provides reliable guidance for the small
business person who's considering an online marketing venture, as well as
for the experienced techno-savvy Internet user who knows little about marketing.
The book itself is an Internet marketing venture for me. It's delivered by
e-mail in a text file, so it can be read and printed on any computer.
Advertising, inquiries, ordering, payment, delivery -- everything takes
place online, with some offline channels available also. Here's where to
find out more about the book and how to order it:
1) Go to my Web site at <http://www.copywriter.com/ab/> for an excerpt,
Table of Contents, direct ordering, and more.
2) Send for my mailbot messages:
[email protected] -- a free excerpt giving 10 online marketing tips
[email protected] -- Table of Contents, ordering info and forms
3) Contact me directly at <[email protected]>.
Al Bredenberg, Copy and Creative Services, [email protected]
http://www.copywriter.com/ab/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 12:56:19 -0700
From: hoffman@colette.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu (Donna Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Becoming Popular on the Web
Bob Novick writes:
>Is 4,000 a lot or a little?
Great question.
> Let's say the total audience, worldwide, on
the WWW on any given day is five to ten million.
Let's not! My partner Tom Novak and I have a lot of fun arguing over this
one (he tends to estimate higher, I tend to estimate lower), but we
both believe that the true size of the global Web "audience" is probably
closer to about 1,000,000 or so, plus or minus say another 300,000.
If we are considering only North America, then we have to shrink the numbers
further.
How do we arrive at such guesses? By backing into them via what is known
about online access figures, Usenet readership counts, online Web surveys,
unique domain visits at popular Web sites, estimates of hosts, domains, and
servers, studies of online behavior, and our experience.
Are we right? Who knows? But our estimates, while by no means rigorous, are
not pulled out of the air. In any event, we'll soon have a much more
statistically defensible answer when the results from the CommerceNet/ Nielsen
study of who is on the Net and why are made available.
There is no doubt that the Web audience has to grow to very large numbers,
in toto, to be considered a truly viable market; however, I think it is
becoming increasingly clear that globally we aren't there yet.
DLH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Professor Donna L. Hoffman hoffman@colette.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu
Owen Graduate School of Management 615-343-6904 voice
Vanderbilt University 615-343-7177 fax
Nashville, TN 37203
Project 2000: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 12:59:08 -0700
From: [email protected] (Stacey Curtis)
Subject: Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0423
>Date: 22 Aug 1995 07:57:04 -0700
>From: "Peter H. Lemieux" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Corporate resistance to the Internet
>sale. While we thought that cost was a primary deterrent, we now believe
>a deeper, and more pernicious problem faces us: the fear among senior
>management about the "threats" posed by an Internet connection.
[snip]
>Beyond the security issues are the concerns about employee time-wasting,
>or worse. (Also, sad to say, the subject of a recent Info Week piece.)
[snip]
>The heart of the question is then, how can this negative media image be
>overcome? What can we, both here at cyways and collectively in the
[snip]
My reaction to this challenge (and I apologize if it seems pedestrian)
is to treat it as I would any other reluctance on the part of rightfully-
conservative controllers of money and environments. Show them their
irrationality. (I'm not addressing the security issue here, only the
"control" fear issue. I think security concerns can best be addressed with
a folder of news clippings from trustworthy sources, and not
with corporate sales promises.)
The first step is to be convinced yourself of why the barriers they fear
either will not materialize or will be worth stomaching. The most difficult
sale, I think, and one that you mentioned, is the one to a manager who fears
giving employees the physical capability to hide their lack of effort,
assuming that many, if not all, employees are latent slackers. If this is
the case, why then are so many companies which are on the Net doing so well?
(Rhetorical questioning.) Why are so many more planning to be there?
What benefits are they reaping in terms of advertising, goodwill, internal
communication, morale? Will a Net connect make employees' jobs more
appealing? Will it make them explore more? Think more? Follow more of
what's going on in the industry? Is this wasted time? Granted, you will
hear some "yesses" to this question, and these are the companies, I think,
that really don't yet value the opportunities the Net offers, and they very
well might turn into unhappy customers. You don't want them, anyway.
You can see the same fear in many employers' reluctance to let
employees telecommute. More and more employers are allowing it anyway,
however. Why? Because they can retain good employees that way. Because it
often builds employee's computer skills. Because it makes employees happy.
Because it cuts costs on office space. OK, the Net can't do that one
(unless used in conjunction with telecommuting), but it can do the rest.
Overall, and despite employers' fears, telecommuting has not turned those
using it into a bunch of slackers. On the contrary, many workers, studies
have shown, become even more productive because they feel they have to
prove they actually have been using their time constructively. I have yet
to read a story about a company that found telecommuting to be a failure.
I think the key is just to dwell on the positive, to remind companies that
it's gonna happen, whether they're a part of it or not; that they *will*
be outdated if they don't figure out a way to incorporate technology into
their work environment in a constructive way now. I'd start off by offering
something small and nonthreatening: I think if you could convince them to
put their annual report online for potential clients / teaming partners to
view, it would be an initial "warm fuzzy"; it'd lead them into learning a
little bit more about the Net, and they'd see for themselves the potential
it has as a serious, tailorable, even conservative tool.
Perhaps I'm too much of a convert myself; I assume that sheer energy and
proselytization will win over anyone who's worth winning. There are risks
to offering employees freedom over their environment,sure, but only if your
employees suck (though I might phrase that a bit more delicately to their
faces...). The benefits are just too clear and too widespread to be ignored,
though; that's the real kicker. Deal with sensationalist media reports the
same way you'd deal with a flame, because that's all it really is.
- -stacey
Stacey Curtis
Paynet
[email protected]
(202) 739-9740
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1995 13:03:28 -0700
From: "Curt A. Monash" <[email protected]>
Subject: Query: What actually works?
[This is a crosspost between online-news and inet-marketing. I think both
groups might have some interesting things to say on the subject. I hope the
substantial number of people in the overlap group forgive the bandwidth.]
We all presume that cyberspace is likely to take over a significant part of
the information and/or entertainment businesses, and perhaps
retail/distribution as well. Maybe even financial services. Certainly
communication.
But that's largely in the future. What I want to ask is:
What has already worked to date?? And why??
Here, "work" equates to "generate significant tangible benefits, especially
but not only to the creator/provider", where "significant" and "tangible"
are deliberately ambiguous terms.
My own list is:
1. Expensive online data lookup has worked for a long time. Big examples
include Lexis, Dow Jones, I think Nexis, and some fraction of Compuserve.
The core market is fairly expensive professionals, who have little tolerance
for being wrong or underinformed. I presume that the reason for this
success is speed and completeness, which can be overwhelming better than in
paper-based alternatives.
2. A very important special case -- actually, I think bigger by far than
the whole rest of the online business info market -- is stock quotes (and
bonds, currencies, etc.), and the related up-to-the-minute news tickers.
Obviously, in these markets, speed kills.
3. Of course, social interaction has been a biggie, both on bbs/newsgroups
and more recently on Chat: Minitel, Compuserve, Usenet/IRC, Prodigy, AOL,
local BBs -- you name it, a bunch of them have done well.
4. Bbs/newsgroups have had some other widely-adopted uses. Downloading of
software patches, freeware, and .GIFs is one. True information exchange is
another (while it's sparsely attended, the Prodigy Travel BB has helped me
on a couple of occasions). However, it's not obvious that anybody has ever
made a lot of money off of these, however, except maybe Compuserve. Now the
thought is that these services may be given away by manufacturers, in lieu
of advertising. [Anybody have any numbers or estimates for
Playboy/Penthouse subscription revenues?]
5. The communication and software providers themselves, of course, have
taken a lot less money out of the industry than multi-billion stock market
valuations might lead one to think. Much less. If there WERE a lot of
money at stake, the ambiguous pricing of the underlying long-distance
connections would soon be unsustainable. (Actually, that day is coming, as
the big "proprietary" service providers and telephone companies take over
the ISP market.)
6. Hotwired is said to have over $2 million in annual ad revenue, with Word
in hot pursuit. The same is probably true of Yahoo, ESPN, GNN, and other
famous sites. [However, if anybody has credible numbers, that would be
wonderful.]
7. E-mail itself has done well, if you want to count that.
That's about as far as I can get, to date. Can anybody add to this list?
Curt Monash, Ph.D.
Editor
Monash Software Letter
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
