|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Internet Marketing Digest 0427
Internet Marketing Discussion List
Digest #0427
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet Marketing Discussion List is sponsored by
Okidata <http://www.okidata.com>
and Downtown AOL <http://downtown.web.aol.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send any text to the email address [email protected]
Send posts to [email protected]
This list is moderated by Glenn Fleishman <[email protected]>
For info about the list, send INFO INTERNET-MARKETING to [email protected]
Complete list archives: <http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/>
For sponsorship info, add "sponsor.html" to that address
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this digest:
REALITY CHECK ([email protected])
Re: unsolicited e-mail ([email protected] (Albert Lunde))
Bulk e-mail - fixes (Andrew Carrick <[email protected]>)
Re: unsolicited e-mail (Richard Layman <[email protected]>)
marketing by e'mail ([email protected] (Paul Eidsvik))
Re: REALITY CHECK (Daryl Ochs <[email protected]>)
MSN swallowing Internet ? (Not a paranoiac PoV ([email protected] (Joram Rozewicz))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 07:52:25 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: REALITY CHECK
>From Sanford Wallace, president of Promo Enterprises' bulk-email service.
Ok, folks. Time for a reality check. I have been reading hundreds of posts
from people who believe bulk-email is so wrong, that government should get
involved. Or, at the least, the majority of this mailing list believes that
the negatives far outweigh the positives. Well, let's all look at my reality
check. I think that most of us would agree that the practice of sending
"unsolicited" commercial e-mail has increased substantially over the last
year(s). Many of you feel that the response rate to this form of advertising
is dissapointing. We can also assume that ISP's and on-line services are
doing almost everything in their power to eliminate this practice. And, the
majority opinion is that recipients have a tendency to reply with flame,
instead of asking for more info.
Then why is this practice increasing in usage. Why is my customer base
increasing exponentially? Why does my company send out over 200
advertisements per week, via e-mail, and get away with it? Why are new bulk
e-mail companies popping up all over the place. Bottom line: IT WORKS! I
read one comment that said that this practice will only destroy the
reputation of the advertiser. It would only convice people NOT to use their
services. This may be true in some cases, but who's to say that it is true
in the majority of cases? There are a lot of newbies jumping on the internet
by the thousands, that do not subscribe to this train of thought, and those
are the types of people that can be targeted. People use the internet to
share and receive information. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that many
people want to exchange commercial information?
Now, let's look at a parallel situation, on land. Is it a good practice for
a long distance company to "unsolicitedly" call households at 8pm to ask if
they would like to switch long distance companies? If I took a survey, I bet
that at least 95% of the American population would say, "NO. That is wrong".
(And probably 99% of this list would probably scream, NO!!) Guess what?
AT&T, MCI, and SPRINT all do just that. And it WORKS! Otherwise at least
one of them would have given up by now, wouldn't you think? They could have
just posted ads in the traditional ways, but they all feel that the "in your
face" approach is necessary to reach their sales goals. Oh, and it DOES cost
the recipient money. Time is money. I'm sure people could put a price tag
on time they designate for relaxation at home. So, what's the difference
between these companies' practices and bulk-email practices. I could tell
you one difference. Bulk-email companies can unsubscribe recipients upon
request. Try unsubscribing to MCI phone solicitations.
Isn't this marketing mailing list designed to explore succesful ways to
promote and advertise on the internet? If everyone buys into the
"netiquette" thing, then practices like mass-email may never be properly
explored. I, for one, have explored it, and I am rewarded greatly for my
bold work.
And, about legislation ... We don't need a government to step in to help
control internet behavior. We also don't need a supreme code to dictate to
us how to use the internet. "Netiquette" is an opinion. It's not a law. It
can change with the times. By having different view points and different
opinions dictate behavior ... a society will continue to evolve by itself.
People subscribe to this cyber-society by choice. If they don't like it,
they can leave it. There are no ranks, and there are no supreme leaders.
That is the backbone of the internet. We do not need a government to decide
for us. And, the practice of bulk e-mail WILL and WOULD HAVE dissapeared if
people do not participate in it. Bottom line: From a cost effective
analysis, bulk e-mail is one of the best ways to advertise, if it is done
correctly. And that takes into account all of the negative opinions
surrounding the practice.
Let's open our minds! Don't just look at this from one side. There will be
millions of companies jumping onto the internet within the next few years.
Many of these people are accustomed to receiving "JUNK" postal mail, and
solicitations from every direction, on land. These are the same people who
help keep the commercial mail order industry alive. Don't you think that
there is a tremendous opportunity here? We're all business people. Let's
open our minds, and stop subscribing to rules that we have the right to
change.
- --Sanford Wallace
President
Promo Enterprises
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:03:42 -0700
From: [email protected] (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: unsolicited e-mail
> (5) I have a suggestion which could be a big step to reduce this
> problem. Have an internet rule that if you have an asterisk (*) in the
> left most position of your e-mail address it means that you do not want
> unsolicited e-mail. If that logic is inserted into mailer programs it
> would reduce spamming significantly in that perpetrators most likely do
> not write their own mailer programs. Mailer programs would also have to
> ask the writer if current msg. is general broadcast advertising (spam)
> and insert an * in the first position of subject line. Hey...it's a
> candle in the darkness rather than crying, groaning and gnashing teeth.
> This is not my original thinking, the white pages of telephone books
> show an * to alert telemarketers not to call. I'd like to see other
> thoughts on this.
In general proposals to make it easier to filter mail at the the destintation
miss the point that by the time mail gets to the filter, much of the
costs of delivery (especially in network congestion) have already
been incurred. It is in my own best interests to continue to take
a hard line and insist that mail be controlled at the source.
Your proposal for adding something to the e-mail address is novel,
but technically unfeasible. I can think of a number of widely
used operating systems and/or mailers that do not allow the
flexiblity to create addresses with arbitary characters added
Often the email address is tied to the account/username.
Besides the burden of proof it wrong: the present default assumption
is that no one should receive unsolicited e-mail advertisting, and
you can't change that unilaterally or get a net-wide consensus
to change it overnight.
It is also important to recognize that e-mail and USENET news have
an _extermely_ diverse base of software agents, encompassing networks
beyong the Internet, such as Fidonet, BITNET, UUCP, LAN mail gateways
and so forth. This makes it unrealistic to assume that any new technical
feature will be universal. (Note the work in MIME done to accomidate
old mailers with various limits.)
With the present organization of the Internet, the best place to
control network abuse is among Internet providers. I've usually
at least gotten a hearing to complaints I've made, though their
acceptable use policies vary widely after the demise of the NSFNET
AUP. IMHO, it's actually in their own best interests to set some standards
to prevent technical retaliation (mail bombs, etc.) from taking
down their site due to major spams.
I'm on a net that still has an AUP againist unsolicted e-mail
advertising, so a simple agreement to respect the AUPs of other
networks would "protect" me.
It's hard to codify this kind of thing as the various variations
of USENET spams have tended to suggest. Our law makers are about
the least well-equipped to deal with defining net abuse, with
rare exceptions. There is a community of sysadmins and net providers
that have some accountablity and some clues, and they are doing
most of the real work of dealing with this now.
- --
Albert Lunde [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:04:32 -0700
From: Andrew Carrick <[email protected]>
Subject: Bulk e-mail - fixes
Steve O'Keefe writes:-
> Here's what I do with stuff I don't want to read: DELETE. It's really not
> that hard folks. It takes me less time to delete dozens of unwanted
> messages than to flame even one spammer.
I am certainly with the spirit of Steve's views, though I suspect quite lot
of the pay-per-message folk are going to find it a little flip.
Essentially, we've primed the space in which unsolicited e-mail can thrive
(and indeed its not just "spammers" - there *is* a grey area) by opening up
the Net to every plug and play commercial interest without a care in the
world about our precious netiquette - "What can you do? Then do it ..."
Some might say we're democratizing the Internet but its at a cost to the
original military/government/academic oligarcy - I think I'll leave that for
another thread . . .
> When I get unwanted phone calls, I politely hang up. When I get unwanted
> mail, I throw it away. When I get unwanted e-mail, I delete it. If I
> suspect I'm on a list where I'll continue to get unwanted e-mail, I send a
> form letter politely asking to be removed.
>
> My solution to this problem would be the ability to have "unlisted" e-mail
> addresses, and the ability to register with some central organization to
> be taken off junk e-mail lists.
This is the crux of the matter - lets talk solutions not just blacklists
and mailbombs. We need to develop the kind of filters and systems which do
what Steve's judicious and patient "delete" does. IMHO the onus on developing
these enabling tools should be firmly with the large ISPs. I'd like to
see something put back into the evolution of the Internet by these
organisat ons. They ore the source of so much of the grief - their clients
produce the spams and their customers complain about paying for them. Sort
it out for them! Put some resources into developing fixes. The rest of us
will benefit too, of course, as they have themsleves have piggy-backed the
first couple of stages of Internet development bankrolled by public money.
Is anyone in the know on developments in effective filter fixes or smart
mail configurations to counter unsolicited mail?
Andrew Carrick
========================================================================
Andrew Carrick UCL Press Limited
UCL Press r University College London
Senior Editor - Science Gower Street
e-mail: [email protected] London WC1E 6BT
tel: (+44) 0171-380-7707 fax: (+44) 0171-413-8392
* UCL Press catalogue URL - "http://www.bookshop.co.uk/ucl/"
*e========================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:08:15 -0700
From: Richard Layman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: unsolicited e-mail
On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, Internet Marketing discussion list wrote:
> From: [email protected] (Robert Mcgrady)
> [edited]
>
> (4) I see a parallel to the US mail. Junk mail is legal. You think it
> is free? Why are you now paying $.32 for first class when personal
> letters are such a small part of the volume? Could part of it be to
> subsidize 2nd and 3rd class mailers?
No. This is a myth that comes from not understanding how mail is sorted
and moved thorugh the system. Presort discounts come from the fact that
the 2nd and 3rd class mail is organized, even down to the carrier route
level, for the Post Office before its received, in order that Post Office
handling of that mail is minimized. Given that almost 90% of the USPS
budget pays for personnel and pension costs, you can see how mailers, by
providing "free personnel" in effect, significantly reduce the costs to
the Post Office to handle such mail. (If you ever hand sort a bulk
mailing for discounts, you'll understand this principle better. Even a
2,000 piece mailing takes two people a few hours.) In comparison, small
mailings or individual letters in first class mail require much more
handling, which accounts for its higher cost.
> (5) I have a suggestion which could be a big step to reduce this
> problem. Have an internet rule that if you have an asterisk (*) in the
> left most position of your e-mail address it means that you do not want
> unsolicited e-mail.
I have argued in favor of this kind of idea before. People (some of us
anyway) want to be informed of interesting stuff -- I'm looking for
quality and low cost telecommunications and printing services for
example. 3rd class mail alerts me to some of these opportunities.
Because of the cost to the network and individual mailboxes, I can't see
willy-nilly 3rd class e-mail. An asterisk might not be enough because it
wouldn't prevent the stuff I don't want -- "make money fast" postings and
other stuff of interest to others but not me. I would almost want to see
reputable mail houses get in the business of creating e-mail "junk" mail
lists -- where you check your preferences and they send you stuff, or
loadable URLs, every so often.
Getting that initial "offer" to me is the problem though. How do I let
Sisk Fulfillment know what kind of e-mail I want? How does Sisk decide
what meets my quality standards?
Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer
Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002
(202)544-5722 - (202)543-6730 (fax) - [email protected]
http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn (... I know, it needs work)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:09:38 -0700
From: [email protected] (Paul Eidsvik)
Subject: marketing by e'mail
Much of the discussion we have been having assumes that marketing by email
and spamming are the same thing. They are not.
We have been involved in email marketing for some time now, fairly
successfully. In fact I suspect that in dollar volume we are among the most
successful internet marketers around. And so far we have done it completely
without the web, although that may change.
Our approach is to PARTICIPATE in newsgroups and mailing lists which are
relevant to our field. We participate in the discussions going on. We
offer opinions and advice. We announce new developments in the field. We
mention our products if they are relevant and if they might solve another
participant's problem. We low-key any commercial approach. We might end a
comment with a line like "if you are interested in more information let us
know", followed by an 800 number and an email address.
One of the lists we are involved in involves approximately 700 key national
leaders in our field (all potential customers). They recently had a
discussion (started by a vendor) about whether vendors and manufacturers
should participate in the list. One or two objected but the overwhelming
majority of responders said that vendor and manufacturer participation was
welcome and valued. The vendors after all have access to a lot of
information, experience, and sources that the "customer" doesn't have.
In the year we have been doing this I HAVE NOT BEEN FLAMED ONCE by any
participant in any of the lists or groups we are involved with.
The only flames I have received are from participants in groups such as this
one (internet-marketing) who have flamed me for DISCUSSING email marketing.
This is one of the things that leads me to believe that those who would like
to impose a restrictive "netiquette" on the internet are really a MINORITY.
By the way, even though I have been flamed for discussing email marketing on
this and other lists, many more have emailed me to indicate their agreement
with my view.
Again, we are not talking about spamming, or indiscriminate bulk emailing.
That doesn't work well using snail mail either.
I hope this discussion can continue.
Thank you,
Paul Eidsvik [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:13:14 -0700
From: Daryl Ochs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: REALITY CHECK
>From Sanford Wallace, president of Promo Enterprises' bulk-email service.
>
>Ok, folks. Time for a reality check. I have been reading hundreds of posts
>from people who believe bulk-email is so wrong, that government should get
>involved. Or, at the least, the majority of this mailing list believes that
>the negatives far outweigh the positives. Well, let's all look at my reality
>check...
Sanford,
I too have been watching this debate and have remained silent to this point.
But here is my .02
You make some salient points in defense of your activity. But, I think you
are somewhat missing the point of contention. With bulk email ads, the
recipient is caught in a dilemma. There is cost and intrusion that is
aggravating. My computer screen is much more "in my face" than junk mail.
When all of us sort our smail, we have an automatic BS filter-factor that
simply puts most of the junk mail into the round file.
On my screen, there is a fasination with what's there that almost demands I
take a look, and then I feel suckered in, just as I do when I get suckered
into opening up a piece of junk mail. Only think is, with junk mail, it
didn't cost me actual cash to handle it.
OTOH, I have spent 15 years of my life learning how to construct advertising
mail that gets people to open it. And further, once opened, how to make
sure they actually read it. That's both an artform and a science. And the
same craft can be applied to email.
But you're not doing that. You are getting "in our face" with your process
and almost Forcing people to deal with you. So, here is a suggestion...
I, for one, actually think you have a good idea, with a bit of difference.
Since I actually read most junk mail (if it has some style) just because I
am constantly seeking info on what others are doing, thinking, creating,
etc... my comments may be biased.
But, what if you gave us the opportunity up-front to participate or not? I
think many people would welcome the opportunity to receive a broad base of
advertising, IF they felt they were in control of that happening initially,
not just after the fact.
If I had received a well-crafted offer from you to be included in your list,
rather than having to do something to be taken off, I think my initial
reaction would have been far different.
That way you would be perceived as a legitimate vendor, with something of
value to offer, rather than an interloper who needs to be shoved into his
(sic) place. I do agree with you that much of "neticate" is predicated on
feelings and rules that could, in fact, stand some challenge. I just don't
think your way is the best.
As you can see, my comments are not just aimed at you, Sandord. But to all
of us. I hope there can be a workable solution to this discussion.
Best wishes,
Daryl
_________________________________________________________________
Daryl Ochs, General Mgr. [email protected]
Business & Marketing Solutions www.valleynet.net/~solutions/
The Chiropractic Solution www.valleynet.net/~chiro/
Fax: 916-722-3091
"Applying Strategic Thinking To Focus Marketing"
__________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1995 09:17:53 -0700
From: [email protected] (Joram Rozewicz)
Subject: MSN swallowing Internet ? (Not a paranoiac PoV)
A lurker surfaces.....
Hi..., thanks..., great..., etc.. etc... :=)
I have come across an article published in a French newspaper (Liberation,
24 Aug.95) regarding Windows 95 and the threat that MSN might represent to
the Internet. I believe that this should be brought to the attention of the
respectable Internet Marketing-list participants and lurkers. I know that
other news groups and mailing lists are dedicated to our friend Bill, but I
believe that the issues raised are of prime concern to all of you Marketing
Netizens.
Journalist Edouard Launet wrote:
*** Bill Gates said to the International Herald Tribune on Monday that
today's growth of the Internet is the most important event in the
computer-world since the shipping of the IBM-PC in 1981. Quoting BG:
*Microsoft has to grab every opportunity offered by the Net. Every
product-group, from Windows to MSN, has to give absolute priority to the
exploitation of Internet*... (Very approximate translation from a French
quote, sorry, but the essence is in !)
...The comparison made between the beginning of the PC and Internet is not
an innocent one. The Net, like micro-computers in the early 80's is a new
territory. ...the lack of safety on the Net makes the professional users
still anxious. The same way Microsoft *professionalised* the anarchy of
micro-computers by imposing standards, Microsoft would love to tame the
Net, to transform the electronic Woodstock into a real business place.
Taking its toll by the way....
...Microsoft's - unofficial - strategy is in 4 steps:
First, creating its own network....
Second: Taking advantage of its OS's superiority (in number) to impose MSN.
In fact, Windows 95 include all necessary tools to connect automatically to
the MSN, which will become part of the OS itself.
Third: Signing *exclusivity* contracts with companies (travel agents,
newspapers, catalogs) which will choose to open their servers on MSN. This
should be done in 1996. Microsoft intends to cash in 20% of all commercial
transactions made on MSN.
Fourth: Interconnecting totally MSN and Internet (in a year). This is the
most difficult part. This gateway being open both-sided, it will allow MSN
users to go surfin' the Net. But Bill Gates is taking the chance that the
Out-door will become an In-door. He bets on the quality of his service to
have MSN become a black hole which will naturally absorb the Net.
Business will take care of the law and Utopia will have to find a new
playground. The good side is that new commercial services will be created,
employment will be created and cyberspace will be structured. The bad side
is that the creativity of the net will go down. It's been proven in the
past: computer revolutions emerge in US Universities and die in
Wall-Street....***
Again, the above is only an approximate translation from French, sorry but
my English doesn't allow for better. I am not the author so don't flame me.
But I would love to see this topic discussed in this list. (Disclaimer: I
am not concerned about the good or the bad of Microsoft, I just want to
make a point so that people making their living on or of the Net know
what's happening. You're the big boys, but you're not alone).
Joram Rozewicz
Free to speak out by democracy, (^o^)
bound to silence by neighbours,(^=^)
back to lurking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Sponsors:
Okidata <http://www.okidata.com>
Okidata is a 23 year old company that's built its success on meeting
the computer printing needs of small to medium sized organizations
throughout North and South America
Downtown AOL <http://downtown.web.aol.com>
The streets of Downtown AOL are populated with an eclectic group of
merchants, offering products and services that span the spectrum from
novelty mousepads to regional gourmet food items.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
