[Same as ...
Spam will end/go away when people STOP responding to it. It is another
thing that IS PROFITABLE because *#(@$!%* people respond to spam by
clicking links and buying products/services sold via spam. During one
discussion of spam on a different list, someone mentioned that they
recently bought something when they responded to spam. Did not understand
the concept that if you want something - go looking for it via legitimate
channels. And truly didn't understand that they ARE part of the problem.]
Truth is, some people are much less irritated by spam than others. For
example, spam doesn't bother me much because I'm so totally used to it. Some
of it I even asked for myself by opting in or inquiring about something.
Well it doesn't occur to me to get annoyed by spam that is a filter and/or
click delete away. I'm a happy person and little things like an unwanted
email barely register on my radar screen. I just delete, and who knows, what
if I did like something somebody sold in an email. That's fine too.
To see people others in absolute kniption fits over spam is most amusing to
me. Can you imagine watching CSI and going ape-wild every time a chevy ad
came on? I mean - yes, Chevy paid for the ad, and the spammer didn't, so
obviously I don't respect spammers much in comparison, but, for a person
like me who gets maybe 1000 emails a week or more and reads 150, the true
spam and the opt-in spam all starts to blur together. You can't always tell
one from the other... it's almost all spam sometimes it seems.
As for pop unders... that's a different story, because it's messing with my
windows structure on my desktop... it's MUCH more invasive than spam, and
so, I guess there are some people who don't mind pop-unders, but I hate
them, especially when there are more than one. I made the mistake of typing
http://notetabpro.com for example, instead of http://notetab.com and the
onslaught just took over my machine! When you've got Dreamweaver running,
and say Word, or Flash, or whatever plus 2 or 3 browsers going, the popup
thing is very invasive, especially more than one. All for a url that doesn't
However, one well chosen thematically relevant popunder doesn't hit my radar
screen much either.
I worked at About.com for 4 years and I remember the day the popovers first
started... tampon ads popped over my Coltrane article, etc. That was weird.
Took a long time to try to sell the idea of on-topic advertising. I know
they've tried everything in order to somehow stay afloat. It wasn't pretty.
But popunders are more subtle than popovers Amen?
I remember reading that the company who invented popunders is trying to get
the patent, and will want all people using popunders to pay a royalty.
Wondering if AOL is just sending them a message? Sorry I forgot the
specifics of that article... did anyone else read that?
Received on Fri Oct 18 2002 - 10:55:42 CDT
HOW TO JOIN THE ONLINE ADVERTISING DISCUSSION LIST
With an archive of more than 14,000 postings, since 1996 the
Online Advertising Discussion List has been the Internet's leading forum focused on professional discussion
of online advertising and online media buying and selling strategies, results, studies, tools, and media
coverage. If you wish to join the discussion list, please use this link to sign up on the home page of the Online Advertising Discussion List.|
Online Advertising Industry Leaders:
Local SEO with Video
Houston Web Design
Add your company...