Re: Yellowfin Business Intelligence recognised among 25 rising companies that CIO’s must know about.

On Dec 18, 7:19 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:

>
> The point of spamming is to attract people to a site: Don't click on the
> link.
>
> The point of spamming is to make money: Don't buy their product.
>
> But for a commercial operations such as YellowStream they need their
> reputation. If they are exposed in as spammers it will hurt them
> financially and they will stop.

I certainly want to agree with all that. But like any other boycott, it's difficult to show metrics that it works. Different than other types of boycotts, I speculate the marketeers go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize what they are doing, and wind up ignoring peoples complaints in favour of the response rate, or whatever they call it. In newsgroups, we've seen how it sometimes takes a few go-arounds with spammers who don't really know that it is wrong before they finally see the light and go away, but these machinegunners  who spray lots of groups without actually interacting - with no feedback, it's hard to say. It's easy to imagine some publication guy in Asia with no clue about newsgroups just shining on a few whiners, not understanding the issue at all.

So I don't disagree with you, but I wonder about the mechanics. Obviously the Yellowbelly spammer doesn't get it, even though he's been notified directly. I have doubts that the publication that praised his product will put any pressure on him to stop. If the spammer expects a low response rate, it might not make any difference as they see their reputation. The need is to present this as something they care about, I'm just not convinced they will see any negative effect on their bottom line by simple exposure as spammers, and of course, if the spammer or the publication are monitoring hit rate on a web page, any PR is good.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
YOTLD http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22386/1103/