Spamming (Good or Bad?)

[Paul S. Penrod]

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Jim Gillogly wrote:

> 
> "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs at netcom.com> writes:
> >Practically, it would be better to allow and promote a technological 
> >outlet for all of this, as it will never go away, so long as the medium 
> >exists.
> 
> The technological outlet already exists: polite marketers use Web pages,
> so that people who are interested in their offerings can find them using
> one of the search engines.  Market droids (get over it, dude) are
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nothing to get over. That's Ross who has the problem with the term.

> unwilling to reach only people who are interested in their products.
> 
> 	Jim Gillogly
> 	Trewesday, 29 Wedmath S.R. 1996, 20:45
> 

Web pages are only the *basis* for the outlet. By themselves, yes, they 
do provide a forum for advertisers, but the page by itself is not very 
efficient in terms of targeted demographics. That's why people get a wild 
hair and take matters into their own hands and launch spam in the hopes 
of finding the customers they thought would come flocking to them in droves.

As the number of Web pages increase dramatically, the chances of getting 
a "first hit" diminish accordingly. Most people I know have neither the 
time or patience to wade through up to two hours of web surfing to find 
something that a few well placed phone calls and 10 minutes turns up said 
product or service.

The issue is convenience, not technology. The majority of US consumers 
couldn't give a rat's ass about the Internet or the Web. They want their 
product or service and they want it now. When the Web becomes more 
convenient to use than the telephone, then you will see nirvana for 
Cybershopping. Right now that isn't happening.

...Paul