Subject:
|
Solicitation, but not spam (was Re: Spam by proxy ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:39:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
709 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Ray Sanders writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > Requiring a join as a condition of sale/purchase is certainly legal in
> > my book, but it's not a tactic I would use. Not sure I'd call it wrong,
> > though. Nor is a note to you offering to purchase "spam", per se,
> > Annoying, perhaps, but it doesn't fit the SPAM definition which has bulk
> > mailing inherent in it. IMHO.
>
> I don't think I called it illegal (go back and reread my post).
I read it, thanks. Don't assume I didn't, thanks. Didn't say you called it
illegal, merely pointed out that it isn't illegal, for the benefit of those
that might think that it is.
> Another
> instance of targeted spam,
I agree with your feelings in general, but I just want to make it clear that if
I compose a note to you by hand offering to purchase your item, no matter what
conditions I may attach, that's not spam. By definition. It may be annoying,
rude, etc. but it is NOT SPAM.
Do you have reason to believe that you were bulk mailed? THAT is the definition
of SPAM. You could look it up.
I get offers to sign up for credit card processors all the time. I am pretty
sure THOSE are probably spam, inasmuch as based on my read of them, my addy was
harvested from eBay auction listings. There's no personalization to the note.
> although in this case, it is cleverly
> interwoven with a (potential) purchase request. If the offer to purchase
> is conditioned on signing up for one of those services, then (by my
> definition) it is spam.
Your definition is wrong and you do the discussion a disservice by using it.
It's merely annoying to you, not SPAM. If you keep calling it spam, you're
going to leave me, at least, with the impression that you're not sure what
you're talking about. Words don't mean what you want them to mean for your
convenience, they mean what we all agree they mean.
> Neither of the inquiries said "I want to buy
> this, can I pay this way ?". Both of them left me with the impression
> "I'm going to buy this, because the spiff will offset my cost"
> (my interpretation).
>
> In any case (if I understand this correctly), there is nothing that
> would have prevented them from signing me up, then never following thru
> on the purchase. Making them my reference (again, my conjecture) from
> then on. The opportunity for abuse seems to abound.
I'm not sure what you mean there. If you signed up, they'd get a one time
payment. Neither X nore PayPal are MLM, they get nothing from you for any
referrals you may subsequently generate. What is the abuse exactly? This is
classic viral marketing and X, in fact, is a victim of their own success, in
that they opened a second CSR call center, then cut off the offer early because
of how much volume it generated.
> > Don't count on regulation to save you from a crater. Do your due
> > diligence. I've investigated X and PayPal and satisfied myself as to
> > their bonafides. I also don't leave more money there than I care to
> > lose, just in case.
>
> Due diligence is fine and well. An industry type with a poor track
> record invites regulation. People are flocking to X and PayPal almost as
> tho it were the 'second coming'.
Is this an industry type with a poor track record? How? It just came into
existence 3 months ago, how can it have a track record? Don't categorise it
with MLM scams that burned people a while back, it's nothing like that. Name
another "payment via the internet service" that cratered and left depositors
hanging. Investors, which is what I think you're referring to, that's a
different matter. I'm not sure I'd buy X stock. But investors are putting up
money in exchange for a high risk high reward investment. They have nothing to
whine about if it doesn't work out.
To be specific: X is a bank and therefore subject to all the same regulations
as other banks. It's FDIC insured so it <sarcasm> MUST be safe </sarcasm>.
PayPal is a merchant and therefore subject to all the same regulations as other
merchants, and further subject to the master acceptance agreements of
MasterCard and Visa. You can charge back your charges through your card company
if you need to.
However, on the other hand, X and Paypal are entirely new, and revolutionary.
This is an era when entire new industries are being invented out of whole
cloth. Enjoy the ride instead of being fearful, the times, they are a changin'!
> Is this really 'free money' ? Is there any such thing ? Where is the catch ?
As to whether it's free money, did you read the Terms and Conditions? I did. Do
your due diligence before you complain about their business model. You're not
obligated to X any more (or less) than you are to any other bank that you have
money on deposit with...
It's free in that the money really is in your account. For X, I ATMed mine out
as soon as I got my card. It's not free in that their business model is that
they are going to make more money on what you leave on deposit than they pay
out in interest. Or so they think.
Asking for regulation for something you don't understand seems rather foolish
to me. And rather 80's. The era of big government is over. Clinton said so,
therefore it must be true.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | What is spam?
|
| [I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here...] (...) I wonder, though -- couldn't such a message theoretically _contain_ "spam" even if the message as a whole isn't considered "spam"? For example, when I see something at the bottom of an email (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Spam by proxy ?
|
| (...) I don't think I called it illegal (go back and reread my post). Another instance of targeted spam, although in this case, it is cleverly interwoven with a (potential) purchase request. If the offer to purchase is conditioned on signing up for (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
