| LED Digest 2157: Customer List Ethics |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest
Moderated Discussion List
"Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997"
Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom
pair Networks: The LED's Web Host
Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader
pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains
==================================================
List Moderator: Published by:
Adam Audette LED Digest
adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com
..............................................
May 10, 2006 Issue no. 2157
..............................................
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
======= NEW =====================
--== Repeat Emails to a Customer List? ==--
~ Andy Johnson
"I fear that sending the same email so soon
will possibly anger some customers."
==== CONTINUING =================
--== Customer Perception ==--
~ Roy Williams
"We have a free shipping policy globally."
--== 'Net Neutrality ==--
~ Amy D. Moore
"There are two major issues with the loss
of Net Neutrality."
~ Brad Waller
"...everyone will not be treated equally when
it comes to delivering the data."
--== Penalized for Site Re-designs? ==--
~ John Barendrecht
"Google referrals are now 6 to 10 per day,
instead of 6,000."
~ Mary Lee
"I really wanted to find out if this is a common
thing."
==== BILLBOARD ===================
--== Renamed and Redesigned ==--
~ Bart Patterson
--== Results - Not Pages! ==--
~ Mark Medlicott
~ Tom Anson
============ NEW =================================
From: Andy Johnson
Subject: Email Repetition
I have been a member of LED for more than 5 years and have learned a
lot. Now, I need some advice.
Last Friday I sent out an informational HTML email concerning our
software products to our customer list. The response has been
acceptable, but no sales have resulted so far. My partner wants to
send out the exact same email this Friday to the same list under the
theory that repetition will get more people to read the email.
I fear that sending the same email so soon will possibly anger some
customers who will request we remove them from our list. Will
potential sales out weight the potential loss of some customers from
our list?
Does any one have an opinion or advice on this question?
Thanks to all,
Andy Johnson
Greenleaf Software, Inc.
======== CONTINUING ===============================
From: Roy Williams
Subject: Customer perception
We have a free shipping policy globally. We go even better and have
free GUARANTEED shipping, which in the UK is via Post Office
'Recorded delivery' and overseas by 'International Signed For' mail.
We go to great pains to point this out on our site, and every time
you add something to our shopping cart, it reminds you.
Yet we STILL get people asking us how much our shipping costs are!
People seem to expect it.
As a 'side issue', we have to impose a minimum order value, because
we have some cheap items that don't even cover postage costs!
Real gone,
Roy Williams
Nervous Records
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Amy D. Moore
Subject: Net neutrality
I understand the business argument to shun Net Neutrality - at least
their stated need to alter the parity of today's Internet. However,
that does not alter the fundamental good will of the American tax
payer who paid to build and rent - for the cost of development many
times over - the Internet today.
Indeed, if Bob Cavanagh's school needs to control latency and jitter
[issue 2156], he should pay for that special assembly virtual
private network or become a part of I2 - or band with fellow
businesses to encourage the building of capacity on the Internet to
handle is needs. I do not feel I should suffer a loss on what I have
paid for and built in order for him to have better service.
As for John Barendrecht's questions about the access speed for end
users of the Internet [issue 2156], that is irrelevant to Net
Neutrality. Indeed, we can all purchase different methods of both
ramping onto and delivering to the Net from dial-up to T1 lines (and
bigger). But once the traffic is on the web, the nodes do not treat
any one packet any differently than the next. Yes, John, we do have
Net Neutrality now.
There are two major issues with the loss of Net Neutrality. The
first is the most discussed and that is that in order to give larger
pockets better delivery service on the web, the current proposal is
to allow - even though the providers say they will not necessarily
do this - existing service for users to drop in quality. Make no
doubt about it, the public paid for the Internet starting back in
the 1960's and our government currently holds control of that right
for us in Net Neutrality.
An illustrative example of this idea is our road system. To some
extent we can all choose what kind of home we live in based on the
money we have to spend - but we all go to work on the same network
of roads. With the exception of emergency vehicles and the currently
dangerous HOV lanes all traffic gets the same priority once they are
on the road because all vehicles follow the same rules. Some roads
are restricted by vehicle size - and those are usually tertiary
roads leading to or coming from some end point.
To suggest that in order for my rich neighbor to get to work faster,
or for some shipping company to be able to move their materials more
efficiently, I should be willing to take back roads to where I am
going is laughable. In order to accomplish faster or more efficient
movement in our physical roads, we petition our government to repair
and improve them or to add capacity. That should be the model for
the web as well. If the dollars are available from businesses
because they need more capacity, the Internet utilities have a
responsibility to build out - just as any other utility provider.
The second concern with loss of Net Neutrality, and probably the
largest concern of all is in order to get rid of it, nodes would
have to start to look at the sender, receiver, and content of
packets traveling over the 'Net. This brings with it a whole slew of
issues. It is the first step toward government and commercial
censorship. It also takes resources from the nodes which they
weren't designed to provide. Right now a node only needs to move a
packet "forward" based on destination. It doesn't need to make any
other decisions or priorities regarding content and "importance" of
the sender.
This is Paul Baran's "Hot Potato Routing" and it is the basis of Net
Neutrality. Get a packet. Move it forward. Get the next packet.
Nodes do not stockpile packets and prioritize them.
For a country which has slammed China for its requests of American
companies like Google, Yahoo!, and the like to restrict content, the
request of our Congress to end Net Neutrality is both highly
American (our public resources and politicians up for sale to the
highest bidder) and tantamount to treason. Can you imagine my
electric company using BPL to cut power to my house randomly because
there is a business in my area that paid more money to my
Congressman's campaign that needs it and they don't want to build
out the electric grid?
YouTube has a simple but accurate video explaining the ethical and
actual concerns of this second issue:
http://snipurl.com/q9bg [youtube.com]
There are other major issues for the people in proposed changes to
our Telecommunications besides Net Neutrality. PEG Access is also at
risk.
Here's some plain English on both topics:
The commercial arguments against Net Neutrality are compelling but
that doesn't make them ethically correct. Americans need to
understand the Internet for what it is - a public utility built by
the funds and good will of the people. Our Congress has a
responsibility to us to protect that good will and retain Net
Neutrality.
Amy D. Moore
Internet, Database, and Media since 1996
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Brad Waller
Subject: Net neutrality
John Barendrecht said that we don't have neutrality now, but I think
he is missing part of this. He is right in that we already pay for
hosting or service on a tiered plan. Where he is missing the issue
is that everyone will not be treated equally when it comes to
delivering the data.
Let's say John pays for the fastest burstable speed on the biggest
pipe, and his customer is on the fastest possible broadband high
speed plan from his ISP. Now, the ISP decides to offer a similar
service, and they ask John to pay them a million dollars or else
they will not let their customers access his service at any speed
faster than 56K. Is that a fair business practice?
The issue is that the online businesses are already paying their
hosts for bandwidth, and the customer is already paying their ISP
for bandwidth, but the ISPs want more.
I've been writing about this for months. My first article was in
and I have written about this issue many times since.
Brad Waller
Manage and Sell your own site advertising
waller, adjungle.com
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: John Barendrecht
Subject: Redesigns
> Anyone else been penalized by Google
> for re-design?
- Mary Lee, LED 2154
I did a complete redesign on one of my sites about 2 years ago and
referrals from Google dropped in half for about 6 to 8 months. About
3 months ago, I decided to change the code for the site search box,
which is included in right side of every page. This was the only
change.
Google traffic dropped from 6,000 per day to 3,000. Then I tweaked
search results and changed code twice in next 2 weeks. Results,
Google referrals are now 6 to 10 per day, instead of 6,000. Since
this site is about 6 years old, some refer to this as Google "aging
factor." The referrals from MSN and Yahoo have not changed at all.
I am hoping the referrals from Google will be back to normal in 4 to
6 months.
Best regards,
John Barendrecht
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Mary Lee
Subject: Re-designs
I did keep all of the pages named the same except for 1 theme party
page that had for some reason completely dropped out of Google. I
did a 301 redirect on it. Strange thing though is that this new page
is now #1 on Google for the term '1920's theme party'!
I have had this site 4 years now and a few others that I have had
for over 7 years. I have always stayed on top of SEO and marketing
without resorting to underhanded techniques that would get me
blackballed. Subscribed to LED Digest somewhere around 2000 or 2001
:-)
I also agree with the poster that my re-design helps my customers
find what they are looking for easier, quicker and is easier to read
and that is what REALLY matters. My sales dropped drastically for
about a week (when I just dropped off the Google map completely),
but they have picked up a lot since then, in fact they are better
than this time last month, when traditionally they are 25% lower
this month (seasonal thing). So it is my guess that in some search
engines the re-design must have helped, and potential customers like
it better. So overall re-design is a good thing.
I really wanted to find out if this is a common thing. If so then it
is something that should be thought about and not jumped into. You
also better be sure that the re-design WILL be better for the
customer experience and clean from an SEO standpoint or a temporary
drop could become permanent.
Mary Lee
Dinner and a Murder Mystery Games
==== BILLBOARD ===================================
From: Bart Patterson
Subject: Renamed and Redesigned
On the subject of re-design, I had my site RENAMED and REDESIGNED
from golfequipmentcloseouts.com to golflocker.com.
It's been almost three months since the launch of the new site (with
redirects from the old site) and the new site has yet to show up in
Google's natural search under my key terms of "golf shoes" and "golf
apparel" (and most others for that matter). In Yahoo! we were #5
during the first couple of weeks of launch and have since dropped to
around 60 and have been as low as 100 for the term "golf shoes".
Does anyone have any insight as to why we would go from #5 to never
to be seen at 60 on Yahoo!, and why Google won't even see us at all
yet? I know there are a myriad of reasons, but all SEO coding has
been done with SEO professionals, etc. There are so many sites
listed on Google under these terms on the first few pages of natural
search that aren't even relevant or useful, I would think, to the
searcher.
Thanks,
Bart Patterson
Outfitting golfers from head to toe...
-------- new post - new topic --------
From: Mark Medlicott
Subject: Results
> Please, when you speak of RESULTS in search engines,
> they are exactly that, results! Not PAGES!
- Nancy Cardinali, LED 2156
I can certainly relate to this Nancy. I have all my SE results set
at 20 per page, mainly because that fits my screen dimensions best
and as I find it easier (lazier?) to use my scroll mouse than click
'next' at the bottom of the results. So as you say my page 2 is
someone else's page 4.
I realise in most cases, that this is probably just a grammatical
error by website designers, and that they actually should intend to
discuss results rather than pages, but like you Nancy, I also become
annoyed at times, especially when these people are often spouting
analytical findings that they have established from their 'page
results'.
Regards
Mark Medlicott
Medlicott Design
-------- new post - same topic --------
From: Tom Anson
Subject: Results
> Like I said, just a beef of mine...
- Nancy Cardinali, LED 2156
Hi Nancy,
Get out the BBQ sauce (my apologies to all of our French members).
I think most of us recognize the difference, but IMHO, we just refer
to "pages" as a sort of shorthand for "results pages" or "SERPs",
after all, the results come up on pages, and we're all concerned
about where on those pages our sites' pages are listed.
What really gets me are all of those who "try and do" this or that.
I suppose that many do "try" and actually "do" what they try, but
the phrase is "try TO do" . . .
Tom Anson
Anson Aromatic Essentials
-------------------------------------------------------
The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks:
pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains
© Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Roses grow on thorns and honey wears a sting." - Isaac Watts |
