[Imc-oxford] Why oh why are they still talking to us?

[richard hering]

--- TSCF - Support <iscope at swing.be> wrote:
> From: "TSCF - Support" <iscope at swing.be>
> To: "MrDemeanour" <mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net>,
>         "richard hering"
> <richarddirecttv at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: 
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:08:29 +0100
> 
> Mr Demeanour, 
> 
> Why are you always forced to help your colleague? 
> 
> We never reduced email to a marketing channel. 
> 
> The cost of advertising on TV is enormous for the
> advertiser (while this type of advertising is not
> more targeted than on the Internet); on the Internet
> it is undoubtedly weak. 
> 
> Of course everything has a global cost. It is the
> case of Internet advertising and of other methods as
> well. You do not want to understand that some people
> are interested in receiving some new information
> from us, that they bring support and ask for news.
> For them there is a benefit here, more than a cost. 
> 
> As for your insults, they do not give of you a good
> image. They give the image of someone who terminally
> does not have other arguments. 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: MrDemeanour 
>   To: richard hering 
>   Cc: iscope at swing.be 
>   Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 7:47 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Imc-oxford] More fun with the
> "social" capitalists
> 
> 
>   richard hering wrote:
> 
>   > 
>   >> TV is not a democratic mean, as you need
> considerable funds to use
>   >> it, as you should know.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Oh I see, by "democratic", you mean "at no cost
> to the advertiser",
>   > an interesting definition.
> 
>   By "TV", he means "marketing channel". This is
> also what he means by
>   "email". As far as I'm concerned, TV is
> substantially free, given
>   suitable receiving equipment. You only need
> "substantial funds" if you
>   are planning to use it as a spamming channel
> (because spamming was
>   designed into that channel as a revenue-raising
> feature).
> 
>   Email isn't a free channel - but the spammer gets
> to offload the costs
>   of email murketing onto his ISP, the recipient,
> the recipient's ISP and
>   so on. This creates the illusion for the spammer
> that email is a free
>   murketing channel. However he gets bitten in the
> ass by the fact that
>   spam marketing makes the murketer look cheap and
> tacky, like any street
>   scam-monger selling knock-off fragrances out of a
> suitcase.
>   > 
>   > 
>   >> Now let's stop this "intellectually enriching"
> controversy.
> 
>   Yeah, it's pretty dumb, considering that spam is
> marketing for the
>   terminally un-enriched, intellectually speaking.
> 
>   -- 
>   Jack.
> 
> 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com