251–260 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your personal definition isn't what matters here. This is spam. See wikipedia for this definition: "Email spam, also known as junk email, is unsolicited messages sent in bulk by email"
As I replied in another place here: It depends on what you define as bulk. My personal definition is what matters to me and everybody is free to have their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed but how do you establish the relationship in the first place? Then only options I see is to a) hope google finds you interesting enough, b) paid advertising, or c) word of mouth. What are the other methods ? I am asking because I can't think of anything else.
Have you considered that this type of marketing is actually counterproductive? If a company spams me, and I notice it, it's guaranteed that I will avoid them like the plague, regardless of how good their service is. This is poisoning the well. It might get >5% of the people spammed interested, but what if the other 95%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, your personal definition doesn't matter. If you buy/scrape a list of email addresses, and send to ANY of those addresses, that's spam. I work for an email marketing software company. That's the definition used in the industry. >0 unrequested emails is spam. If you've never spoken to this person before, you have no business relationship with them, and they have not opted in to receive mail from you, you are an ema…
Working for an email marketing company you will aknowledge that something like "email marketing" exists. So there is a way to do this right. Maybe I haven't read TFA closely enough, but I didn't see him mentioning scraping or buying the emails. Maybe that was implied by the number IDK. Initially I just replied to a comment mentioning 4% signup rate and categorizing that as spam, while I thought that rate looks actual…
Of the two above, the latter is probably the spammiest, and might technically count as "spam" since they're unsolicited, but they're generally (in my opinion) targeted sufficiently well enough to be acceptable/tolerable. In excess, though, they can quickly cross that line into being unquestionably spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuck those. We wish we hadn't been so mindblowingly stupid as to put ourselves through those.
Well, those can also be remembered fondly. One that crops up in my memory with some frequency is lying face-down in three inches of snow. My feet are going numb. My SAW is freezing my fingers. My helmet keeps sliding down over my eyes. We've been out here on the perimeter for almost two hours, just waiting for the word to move. They told us to embrace the suck . It was fun. I've never felt so alive.
Only a tangent to the OP, but... I find it hilarious that he calls Abercrombie & Fitch the “high end clothing brand for middle schoolers”. A&F used to target “elite outdoorsmen” (not a joke — think a high end LL Bean), and they made some really good stuff. Some of that quality lasted until the 90s and early 00s after changing hands and shifting towards targeting youth casual wear, but their clothing line is almost al…
Not a fan of how they portray their brand, but in my experience A&F makes really solid fits for althetic type build (think big thighs). This in my experience is really hard to find on clothes of a somewhat modern cut.
Something happened in the late aughts. The fit is not as consistently good (my body changed very little over that time), and the quality of the material and stitching is much lower.
500 emails for 20 signups = 96% off target. >> By May of 2015 I had sent over 30,000 sales and marketing emails .96 × 30,000 = You just annoyed ~28,800 people. It's only because this immense amount of time lost is borne by strangers that it's a viable business. Let's not glorify spammers.
A 4% signup rate actually signifies really well targeted emails. Not everyone who doesn't sign up is annoyed by the mail (or did even open or read it). I think this is far from beeing spam, where you would see signup rates well below 1%.
500 emails for 20 signups = 96% off target. >> By May of 2015 I had sent over 30,000 sales and marketing emails .96 × 30,000 = You just annoyed ~28,800 people. It's only because this immense amount of time lost is borne by strangers that it's a viable business. Let's not glorify spammers.
Maybe someone can be so good, majority of leads end up buying the motor IC. But 4% of response is quite high in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he should be paying human beings a living wage no matter where they are. Pretending that living costs in a developing nation is somehow magically non existent is immoral. Pay people a reasonable wage to live their lives and provide for their families. Just because someone lives in another country does not give a person the moral authority to pay them an amount that does not allow them to properly feed and car…
This point of view compares a marginal improvement with a massive improvement and concludes that bringing about a marginal improvement when you could cause a massive improvement is wrong. This is a false comparison because there's a third option, which is doing nothing. Doing nothing is worse than causing any size of improvement, and almost all of us are doing nothing. If we are to accept that paying Filipino workers…
500 emails for 20 signups = 96% off target. >> By May of 2015 I had sent over 30,000 sales and marketing emails .96 × 30,000 = You just annoyed ~28,800 people. It's only because this immense amount of time lost is borne by strangers that it's a viable business. Let's not glorify spammers.
A 4% signup rate actually signifies really well targeted emails. Not everyone who doesn't sign up is annoyed by the mail (or did even open or read it). I think this is far from beeing spam, where you would see signup rates well below 1%.
SPAM is defined by the recipient, not the sender. Thus, if you're trying to justify something as "not spam" by saying it meets or doesn't meet some criteria, then it's probably SPAM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working for an email marketing company you will aknowledge that something like "email marketing" exists. So there is a way to do this right. Maybe I haven't read TFA closely enough, but I didn't see him mentioning scraping or buying the emails. Maybe that was implied by the number IDK. Initially I just replied to a comment mentioning 4% signup rate and categorizing that as spam, while I thought that rate looks actual…
Email marketing can also include newsletters and emails to existing customers (in fact, the latter is the vast majority of the "email marketing" I receive). Of the two above, the latter is probably the spammiest, and might technically count as "spam" since they're unsolicited, but they're generally (in my opinion) targeted sufficiently well enough to be acceptable/tolerable. In excess, though, they can quickly cross…