I receive unsolicited marketing messages from lala.com every day. I made the mistake of using a *real* email address when their registration assured me that they take my privacy seriously.
Apparently, despite my deselecting the boxes saying ‘send me info’ (as we always do) they have chosen to send me other info daily. Now lala does post a link at the bottom that you can click to change your ‘privacy options’. Of course that takes you back to lala.com where you must ‘login’ (meaning remember the username and password you quickly created. And of course you have several lest they be stolen and some sites even make you change those monthly so good luck.)
Now you are logged back into a service you decided long ago had no use. Let’s see…searching the page for any link saying ‘privacy options’ or ‘preference’. Nothing. After about 5 minutes you may notice a small link at the top of your missing ‘profile’ that says ‘account’. Clicking that leads to more choices and eventually you find your original mistake which was providing a real email address. You quickly change that to firstname.lastname@example.org and you’re again free from yet another non-spamming service provider.
Is something wrong with this picture? How can services *legally* get away with spamming us and then making it nearly impossible to stop them?
Now we could also blame the 1 moron in 1000 who responds to spam or was that me for going back to this site and spending 10 minutes clicking through their pages? Maybe they made enough on the ads to justify it?
Amazing how the slick marketeers and MBAs do such a great job of helping craig win! All he has to do is focus on *not* marketing to differentiate. All google had to do was ‘not be evil’.
Apparently, we live in a world where direct response marketing is driven by idiots and miss spellers. So companies are trained to actually cater to them over the intelligent consumer who pretty much doesn’t respond to ads.
Aren’t craigslist and google examples of services that went after just the part people wanted? What if all ads had to get a 1 pct clickthrough to be shown? Wonder if they’d earn just as much in thed end without the level of noise?
Google is a media company that first said no to ads, then said only ‘relevant’ ads. Craigslist only allows relevant ads. In a focus group we ran with his users they said they loved the service because there were *no* ads. Funny when there’s really nothing else.
So ads that we want to see are content. Hmm…so if I go to your store and you tell me I can buy it for less across the street *and* you get paid, I’m happy and you make money too.
So lala, I say to bill nguyen, a former colleague and ceo of this service, clean it up. Learn from google and craigslist. If you’re going to talk about doing right by artists and fixing the music industry, don’t ignore the rights of your users either.
Not sure if anyone ever tried to calculate the added benefit of spam in revs vs the cost in bad will. Might be worthy of some calculating.
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.