Disqus - Latest Comments for KenMagill

Re: Stupid Top-10 Watch: Dumbest ... List ... Ever

KenMagill — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:18:42 -0000

So a top-10 list that names a non-existent company is ok with you?

Re: Sad Magilla Watch: Where’s the Hate?

KenMagill — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:35:33 -0000

You didn't read that column. Admit it. Someone read it TO you.

Re: Stupid? Brilliant? Getting Pitched on String

KenMagill — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:32:00 -0000

I get a lot of off-target releases. I think this one was sent to me because I write for Multichannel Merchant.

Re: Stupid Media Watch: A Cringe-Inducing Defense

KenMagill — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:26:59 -0000

Todd. The debate has been over for years and you're on the wrong side of an issue that was settled in the 90s. Spam costs the sender little to send so there is no economic governor enforcing efficiency as there is with direct mail.

Spam does costs recipients' inbox providers money and resources to process, though. As a result, when you spam, you steal. It's that simple.

Even if someone has made a purchase from you, if they haven't given permission for you to e-mail them, it's spam.

Re: Stupid Media Watch: A Cringe-Inducing Defense

KenMagill — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:21:22 -0000

Yes. Seriously. To do away with capitalism is to do away with sales and marketing. And it has played out the exact same way every single time-- Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

Read the books Gulag, The Whisperers, The Forsaken, Hungry Ghosts, The Aquariums of Pongyang and When Broken Glass Floats, among others. The experience will be depressing, but apparently enlightening.

Re: CA Anti-Spam Bill Suspended (Yay!)

KenMagill — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:08:34 -0000

If this law gets passed as is and somehow doesn't result in nuisance litigation mills, you will not have to call me out on my mistake. I will be the first to admit publicly I was wrong.

Re: Stupid Magilla Watch: Correcting Two Years of Egregious Inaccuracy

KenMagill — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:59:13 -0000

In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice: "That was a joke, son."

Re: Let's Play the E-mail Blame Game!

KenMagill — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:15:03 -0000

Almost none of my personal messages end up in the junk folder, either at my Gmail, Yahoo or Outlook accounts. Maybe I'm just lucky, but my own experiance is that ISPs do a pretty spectacular job of sorting my incoming mail, and my outbound messages get delivered, as well.

Like I said, I could be lucky, though.

Re: What the Cox.net Snafu Means to You

KenMagill — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:59:45 -0000

You are correct. I made a couple mistakes in this piece and have hopefully fixed them.

Re: Goodmail Partners with Epostmarks, USPS

KenMagill — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:59:58 -0000

Probably. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks ofr pointing it out.

Re: Uh Oh, There’s that Pesky 'You-Can-Spam' Act Again

KenMagill — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:55:43 -0000

Oops! Typo!.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Re: Uh Oh, There’s that Pesky 'You-Can-Spam' Act Again

KenMagill — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:55:05 -0000

Wow, Neil. You're on a tear. Remind me never to make you mad again.

I never claimed Can Spam was the sole or primary means of rendering justice in this case.

However, Can Spam is the most leveraged anti-spam law in the world by far. That is a simple, undeniable fact. And there is absolutely no evidence that anti-spam laws in Australia and New Zealand are more effecive.

As I've already addressed, the fact that less spam emimates from those countries is not evidence their laws work better.

It's a simple case of they have far fewer machines to infect with spamming malware.

Also, your argument here makes a larger point: That the people who are the problem are almost always already breaking other laws that authorities can use in tandem with Can Spam to go after them.

Thank you for making a point I've made repeatedly: We already have anough law to go after these guys.

Legislating opt in may have an unwanted chilling effect on business without even remotely addressing the problem.

Re: Stupid Political Correctness Watch: The What Holiday!?

KenMagill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:10:05 -0000

Also, according to AP style, winter should not be capitalized.

Re: Stupid Political Correctness Watch: The What Holiday!?

KenMagill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:01:07 -0000

I didn't make the point as a Christian. Why? Because I'm not a Christian.

I do recognize, however, that the vast majority of 4th-quarter shopping is driven by Christmas and to call it anything else is idiotic.

Re: Stupid Political Correctness Watch: The What Holiday!?

KenMagill — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:53:27 -0000

Hey Serry:

Believe it or not, I am one of those who believes Jesus was a wise rabbi but not nesessarily the so of the lord. I've simply had it up to here with people pretending there is some vague "holiday" driving the fourth-quarter shopping spike.

Hope all is well in the UK.

Ken

Re: Stupid Political Correctness Watch: The What Holiday!?

KenMagill — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:40:00 -0000

Thanks for your comment Bryan, but I believe there is little more important than the effects of political correctness on our society.

Re: New EmailAppenders-Related Firm Surfaces

KenMagill — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:18:12 -0000

I didn't even know we had a Twitter account! Also, I don't tweet because I don't think people are going to be interested in my random thoughts.

Thanks for your note. I appreciate it.

Re: ‘You Can Spam’ Strikes Again

KenMagill — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:17:37 -0000

No, I am not being "obtuse in the opposite direction." I am explaining that Can Spam is doing all a law can be expected to do in the battle against spam and doing it quite well.

No law, no matter how tough, will stop spam. The wrong law, however, can kill commercial e-mail, one of the most efficient selling channels in history.

Nuisance so-called legitimate marketers who spam are being taken care of privately: They can say they're Can-Spam complient all they want but they get punished by ISPs who divert their e-mail into recipients' spam folders or block it altogether.

Don't believe me? Get a Gmail account. Google does an excellent job of filtering unwanted mail while delivering the messages its users want.

Re: Web 2.0: The Jackass’s Bullhorn

KenMagill — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:44:36 -0000

Good point. Never thought of it that way.

Re: Board Never Saw Greco's Salary, Says Pike

KenMagill — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:09 -0000

The fourth sentence said plain as day: "according to the organization’s most recently available tax records."

I don't know how much clearer you can be than that.

Re: Utah Child No-E-Mail Lawsuit Dismissed

KenMagill — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:06:50 -0000

You're right. I don't write for Newsline as much as I used to these days. I've got other duties.

But I believed this story was important so I took time off my other work to write it, naively thinking I was doing a favor for Newsline's editor and performing a service for its readers.

Stupid me.

Re: Stupid Statement Watch: Umm, That’s Not True

KenMagill — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:11:45 -0000

Let me rephrase that. Are you saying you have eveidence that companies do not have to agree not to spam in order to be Goodmail Certified?

If so, please provide it.

Re: Stupid Statement Watch: Umm, That’s Not True

KenMagill — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:07:30 -0000

Please offer some proof.

Re: Three Evil Words: Part II

KenMagill — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:39:32 -0000

No, your compliance status doesn’t matter only to clients. It matters to law enforcement. It matters to you. It matters to the e-mail system. It matters to inbox providers. And it matters to everyone who has an e-mail address.

The point is [I’ll try this one last time] a lot of marketers spam people—which is unacceptable—and claim that since they’re Can Spam compliant it’s OK. It’s not OK. Marketers who spam severely damage their brand by irritating recipients. What is more, they risk getting their messages blocked from reaching recipients by ISPs.

And when a marketer gets their messages blocked, screaming to the ISP that they’re Can Spam compliant will get them nowhere.

When a marketer says they’re Can Spam compliant, it essentially means they honor opt outs and have accurate contact information in their messages. To tout this like it means something is idiocy.

Lastly, if you’re going to be obtuse, confrontational and insulting, you could at least have the decency to do so under your real name, real title and real company.

Re: Three Evil Words: Part II

KenMagill — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:33:54 -0000

Talk about missing the point. Of course you're Can Spam compliant and of course you should say you are if someone asks.

However, being Can Spam compliant is simply the least you should be doing.

Thanks for the penetrating comment.