4 ms·
Thus a speculative hit to word of mouth does not weight very persuasively against a demonstrable massive increase in recurring subscription revenues. Coinciden
by badclient 13y ago
Thus a speculative hit to word of mouth does not weight very persuasively against a demonstrable massive increase in recurring subscription revenues.
Coincidentally or not, you've just explained why spammers spam. Not that I disagree with you.
- jere 13y agoI think Patrick picked the numbers quite intentionally and in light of that the comparison to spam doesn't hold water. Bob is said to be the 1 annoyed user out of 100. In other words, 99% of people are finding the emails useful. That's the argument at least. Spam, on the other hand, is far to the other extreme. Way more than 99% of recipients don't find those emails useful (not to mention they were unsolicited emails). e.g. "After 26 days, and almost 350 million e-mail messages, only 28 sales resulted" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Cost-benefit_analyses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Cost-benefit...
- badclient 13y ago99% of people are finding the emails useful. How did you reach that conclusion?
- jere 13y agoIt's a hypothetical argument involving a fictional corporation. The numbers are made up. I think Patrick is saying that, assuming most people are satisfied, it's acceptable and not at all evil if a small minority who signed up for the emails in the first place turn out to be annoyed.