[10745] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
a noel-gram rejoinder: RE: Unsolicited Advertising
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Piscitello (Core Competence))
Mon Mar 7 18:16:51 1994
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 11:20:45 -0500
From: David Piscitello (Core Competence) <wk04464@worldlink.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Noel sez...
>I think there is a "signal/noise" ratio issue. Lists like the IETF list have
>definite purpose in mind, and once we start to allow non-IETF related traffic
>on it, we could get a lot of traffic to it. If there's only one IETF related
>message in 100, we'd lose a lot of people we need to have on. (I got off
>TCP-IP because the S/N ratio fell too far.)
The signal/noise ratio on most mailing lists is already so low junk
mail will probably not kill it. User agents that allow you to trash
mail without opening it based on "From:" will sell, and such features
will become commodity. What sort of model do you apply for your
paper mail? You inspect the envelope, if it's suspicious, or
obviously something you don't want to read, you throw it out
(hopefully into a recyclables basket). If you really hate the whole
notion of junk mail, you can ask the post office to refrain from
delivering it (I think it's an all or nothing flag).
> This seems to imply that there is *no place at all* for advertising on
> Internet. I think this statement in and of itself to be false on its .
>I don't think that those of us who don't like advertising posts are saying
>this. We just object to "anything goes" rules, which would allow forums with
>general good, like the IETF list, to be effectively destroyed by people who
>are out for individual return. Not that individual return is bad, mind you;
>far from it! It's just there are times and places when it's appropriate, and
>times and places when it's not.
Maybe I'm being too cavalier about this, but my attitude about
"junk, unsolicited, or advertising" mail is basically "sow what ye reap".
If you're out to make money and you advertise to improve your chances
of making money, you probably want to attract people rather than
distract or annoy them. If you post advertisements in an ill-advised
fashion (i.e., to technical mailing lists), you annoy folks, distract
them from what they want to do, and it's likely they will (a) flame
at you, (b) boycott your product, and (c) cross-post how annoying
and inconsiderate your behavior is to dozens more lists or friends.
Sales among a community so incensed will probably be low, so
I don't think this is a good business model.
If you post advertisements to me personally, I'll apply the same
practice electronically that I do to paper mail.
It's probably fair for mailing-lists to forewarn advertisers about
the "ground rules" for the mailing list. This can be returned
in a subscribe reply; i.e., "welcome to the tribbles mailing list,
we discuss tribble-related issues and do not welcome unsolicited
advertising, profanity, ... If you post such things, expect an
adverse reaction from the constituency of this list. Thanks for
joining us, please respect our playing rules." Of course, there
will be lots of postings by advertisers who don't subscribe first.
This is no different than walking into a conference
session, interrupting a speaker, and hawking beer and pretzels.
The intruder gets what (s)he deserves; the flames and indignation
and the like.
In general, I don't think you control advertising by throwing
new technology to curb it; you influence where advertising is
directed by illustrating positive or negative return
to those who wish to advertise.
dave
