[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale]getting waaayyy OT It begins...
> Not if they don't get read.
> I believe that's the point he was making. Very, VERY few people actually
> read spam, and the vast majority of those who do never respond.
1. Enough to make it profitable for some though.
> Mailing out flyers gets a much higher return for just a slight increase in
> money, and we all know how many people just dump them straight into the
2. Volume is an attribute that is more cost effective with bulk email.
When is the last time someone handed you a flyer? Sent you a spam?
I have marketed through flyers and email. Email is much more effective.
> They covered this subject in depth in a job related marketing course given
> by a rather huge and expensive marketing company.
Can you say bias?
Many marketing companies outright lie. For example, Internet marketing firms
often say that SEO is the way to go, when viral marketing, link marketing and
email marketing (opt-in lists) are more effective long term. Check the hit
counters of some of the bigger news sites (fark, worldnetdaily, drudge) to
see where they get their traffic, sometime.
> After all their millions in market research, they
> concluded that 'spamming' was more likely to lose companies customers than
> gain and that the company brand image would be pyschologically sullied.
What did you expect them to say?
Well, at least they sold you the idea.
> Never discount human pyschology. ;)
Never ignore the fundamental reason why spam is being sent.
If spam did not turn a profit it would stop. It's that simple.
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,