you may want to read this

[touchring]

Originally Posted by radioz

Non-generic typos and spyware are another thing though. I doubt that many legitimate companies want ads delivered by methods that the customer never intentionally initiated and whose delivery is likely to be highly irritating. I suspect that I'd remember you well and make sure that I shopped the competition instead! I know that a lot of people here likely have TM misspellings but if nothing else, I sure wouldn't want my ad there if I was selling a legitimate product.

Well, i think you not understood how modern day direct marketing companies operate, even fortune 500 ones.

Every week, i receive spam fax advertisements from Dell - i'm lucky to use Winfax instead of a real fax machine, otherwise, i will be wasting 5 cents on thermal paper each time Dell sends me a spam.

Their strategy: saturate the market with their ads.

Consumers are funny creatures, a spam is only a spam when you have no wish to buy, but if you happen to be looking for a notebook, that Dell spam with the promotion code becomes a god sent gift, and you will forget all previous grievances.

The only way that PPC ads will be endangered, is by legislation.

[Jothan]

This was a bad article. Not just because it casts an unfavorable light on the 'Domainer' community, but also because it was poorly written.

I was very dissapointed with the slant that was taken on the Washington Post article.

It smells of sensationalist editorial practice, and I have come to expect better from the Washington Post.

There were quotes taken out of context to slant their meaning or interpretation. They almost villify Duke through this process. This is just wrong.

There were also some glaring factual errors, such as them identifying the GM of Yahoo! as John Meyers vs Josh Meyers (something they later printed correction on, at least).

[Banned: Beachie]

Originally Posted by Jothan

This was a bad article. Not just because it casts an unfavorable light on the 'Domainer' community, but also because it was poorly written.

I was very dissapointed with the slant that was taken on the Washington Post article.

It smells of sensationalist editorial practice, and I have come to expect better from the Washington Post.

There were quotes taken out of context to slant their meaning or interpretation. They almost villify Duke through this process. This is just wrong.

There were also some glaring factual errors, such as them identifying the GM of Yahoo! as John Meyers vs Josh Meyers (something they later printed correction on, at least).

Newspaper are scared of the Internet. The printed press is living on borrowed time, so expect more sensationalism. That said, click fraud is real, but PPC isn't going to go away anytime soon - there is no other medium that allows such targeted advertising, and profit margins are a self-controlling factor in advertisers bids.