3 ms·
The real problem here is not the chain of marketing tech that allowed this, the issue is that the marketing message itself sucked. If the message was valuable,
by saltyhiker 10y ago
The real problem here is not the chain of marketing tech that allowed this, the issue is that the marketing message itself sucked. If the message was valuable, many people wouldn't have been bothered by receiving it.
As for the message itself, if their intent is to sell you that specific item you searched for, they should say so. Of course, they need to avoid the creepy-factor, which, along with laziness are the two reasons they may have ended up with the junky message you received.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> The real problem here is not the chain of marketing tech that allowed this, the issue is that the marketing message itself sucked. If the message was valuable, many people wouldn't have been bothered by receiving it. I disagree. This sounds like the rationalization marketing folks put forward, namely that they're actually helping people. No, they are not. At best, they're shoving messages into peoples' faces. At worst, they're shoving poisonous radioactive garbage messages full of lies into peoples's faces. The range of behaviour here is from mildly annoying to outright malicious. Very rare is the case when unsolicited marketing messages are something people are actually happy about.
- saltyhiker 10y agoI agree with you that the lazy/poisonous methods are far too common, and was exaggerating to some extent. In this case the chain of tech may be too sullied for a good message to be well-received. I'd also like to add that as punishment for insulting the Sears marketing team, I got a piece of spam from them 20 minutes after my comment.