(no subject)
From: Richard Caley (MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk)Date: 11/05/02
- Next message: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Richard Caley <MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:12:00 GMT
In article <86wunse1fb.fsf@potato.vegetable.org.uk>, Tim Haynes (th) writes:
>> While people may get to know of the product, they will get to know it is
>> to be avoided.
th> Noboy has yet demonstrated any reason why it's "to be avoided" other than a
th> prejudice based on metadata
Allmost reasons we use to avoid things are based on metadata. Eg, I
don't use Microsoft software except when absolutely necessary because
of the metadata `comes from a company whose other products have turned
out to be turkeys'. I don't buy microwave ready meals because they are
mirowave ready meals, and such have always been awful, rather than
because this particular instance is known to be rubber bits in
tasteless gunk.
`Is advertised by unsolicited mail/newsgroup adverts/cable only TV channel'
is a known, useful indicator of crap.
There is a feedback effect of course. Sane producers know that their
product will be assumed to be crp if they act in crap-producer-style
ways. Hence they don't do it. Hence the things which do get advertised
that way are the clueless reminnt, hence the rule becomes more
accurate. After 20 years of darwinian selection on Usenet, the rule of
thumb is fairly strong.
th> So why don't people take their prejudices elsewhere, or
th> investigate the claims themselves?)
Life is too short to evaluate everything ever advertised. If you
wanted a loan would you (a) go through the junk mail you have gotten
in the past month, (b) watch late night cable TV and not teh contact
names of the loan sharks or (c) ontact a handfulof organisations you
have reason to trust?
th> Answer this: is UCE defined by "claims to be from hotmail.com" or by the
th> content being "get your hot sex with iguanas here"?
How about by `I didn't ask for this, it is commercial and it came in
email'?
>> I believe the accepted wisdom on getting your product noticed positively
>> on Usenet is to put a short note in your signature then become a useful
>> member of some relevent groups.
th> It's one way, and in the case of a website-company producing
th> "articles of interest", it would be the preferred option. However,
th> in the case of a company with a product that it simply thinks
th> would be interesting... no, just post the article and be done.
And have it presumed to be worthless.
>> People will then associated it with `that guy who provides useful help
>> about XXX' not `that plonker who posts pointless adverts'.
th> A company-entity is neither a `guy' nor a `plonker'. Last I checked,
th> companies were allowed to exist in the real world.
But companies don't post news messages, only people do. Company which
employs plonker to do their marketing is not at the top of anyone's
list of suppliers.
Its all about product image. A product mentioned in the signature of a
known-to-be-sane person will perhaps be seen as of interest. A product
mentioned in spam email or adverts posted to newsgroups will be seen
as to be avoided.
If you want someone to buy your product, you shouldn't start by
farting in their face.
-- Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_ |<
- Next message: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "(no subject)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
