3 ms·
If it is, it's inventive. And I'll bet it results in a good hike in traffic+interest.
by axod 17y ago
If it is, it's inventive. And I'll bet it results in a good hike in traffic+interest.
- aaronblohowiak 17y agoKids these days! In fact, laws were passed to stop the practice of having a "going out of business sale" when the business was not failing because it was once a common advertising strategy. In some states, you even have to register such sales with the Attorney General
- kwamenum86 17y agoThis was not exactly a going out of business sale though.
- likpok 17y agoI believe this was also to combat a 'scam' where store owners (the example I heard was Persian carpets) would mark things up, and then have a going out of business sale that would mark them down to above the original price.
- paul9290 17y agoYeah but there is a law against anti-competitive actions too, like Twitter not allowing users choice within their profile setting on the site to select shortener of their choice. Also, Apple and At&t rejecting apps that clearly are rejected because the app is their competition(Skype for one). This is all new territory and these companies might be the impetus for much needed precedence!
- jacquesm 17y agoThat's an interesting argument, if Twitter is free to choose who they do business with then Apple should be too or vv. I can't quite put my finger on why I come down on Twitter being able to prefer bit.ly if they want and Apple not being able to 'prefer' at&t... Something doesn't jive here.
- nir 17y agoIf it is a PR stunt, it's pretty crass. But I doubt it's PR - they don't make any money on links, so a hike in traffic just means more costs. Considering that they did intend to keep the old URLs functioning, and that users can get the same free service from dozens of URL shorteners, the whole thing just seems weird.