Adam L. Penenberg wrote:
> Indeed. Recently, DoubleClick reported that clickthrough rates on
> e-mail were still at about 8 percent.
Is he saying 8% of spam recipients respond and send money in response?
I find that hard to believe. I am curious as to who actually responds
to spam and why. Are people that stupid, greedy, or desperate?
> He asks: "Do people trust TV less because of infomercials? Or mail
> less because of annoying mortgage offers that disguise themselves as
> bills? My guess is that these things annoy people, but they have
> learned to compartmentalize their impact -- the mediums still
> deliver value, so consumers are willing to put up with some
> annoyances for the real benefits." Think about that the next time
> you return from vacation and have to spend an hour deleting spam.
Well, I for one have changed my habits. I immediately throw out mail
that looks like an ad, and I have destroyed legitimate mail as a
result. In one situation, when I called to get a replacement letter,
the company acknowledged that their external printing on the envelope
caused many people to do just as I did and they had to send out many
replacements. So they can push this stuff, but only to a point and
consumers will rebel.
I rarely watch TV when it's broadcast because of heavy and annoying
commercials. I tape everything then watch it later so I can fast fwd
through the commercials. There are some shows, especially on cable
TV, that are so commercial loaded I just don't bother watching them at
all, indeed, I'm rethinking about my paying $60 a month for "basic"
cable TV when I watch so little of it.
I use email and e-commerce extremely sparingly solely because of spam
and fraud. If it weren't for them, I'd freely give out my email
address; today I just tell people I don't have one.
In other words, the medium no longer delivers that "value" to justify
putting up with the annoyances. There is a tipping point and
consumers are reaching it.