Archive for the 'Marketing' Category

Time Magazine Subscription Offer

January 11th, 2005

My father received an envelope sent to him from abroad by Time Magazine. In contained a page with a subscription offer. I’m not sure where they got the name and address from, since he definitely didn’t have any previous relations with them.

In this simple subscription offer where two noteworthy problems:

  1. They presented the prices in a very interesting way. After a supposed discount, the price came to "Ns249". I have no idea what this "Ns" is. The obvious explanation is "New Shekel", but nobody writes that as "Ns", and certainly not as a prefix to the number. The official way to denote Shekels is by "ILS" that stood for "Israeli Shekel" and now stands for "New Israeli Shekel". Everybody that does international commerce in multiple coins manages to find this hardly hidden info, so it’s surprising Time couldn’t. There’s a different abbreviation that is sometimes used "NIS" for "New Israeli Shekel". It’s not correct, but it’s common. But no, they had to go and invent "Ns". Not very inspiring. Unless of course it means something else, in which case I think it’s worse since it’s even less clear.
  2. They offered a free (assuming you believe a "price includes" kind of offer, possibly after a matching price increase, can be considered free) digital camera to subscribers. I took a short look at the camera’s details, and one line caught my attention: "High Resolution 100K Pixel". Yep, they said "High Resolution" in the same sentence as "100K Pixel". Because, you know, a simple mainstream mid-low-range digital camera today would take pictures of about what ? 3.1 megapixels ? 4 megapixels ? That’s only roughly about 40 times more pixels. So 100 kilopixels would fit the definition of high resolution about as much as a 14Kbps modem dial-up connection would fit the definition of broadband. Cute. Or maybe the envelope was just delayed at the post office for a few years…

And in case anyone wonders, no, Time Magazine did not gain a new subscriber.

Hotmail Mailbox Size Announcement

December 29th, 2004

Hotmail still did not increase the size of my free mailbox from 2MB to the much vaunted 250MB. Not that I can really complain, considering how much I’m paying for it. And really, that’s not what I’m complaining about, but rather the timing of their publications and announcements regarding the same size upgrade.

They actually started to publicize the intended change a long while ago. Not too long after Google came with the 1GB GMail accounts. Rumors that Hotmail will offer 250MB mailboxes for the free accounts started to circulate almost immediately. In the meanwhile Yahoo almost instantly upgraded their free mailboxes to 100MB. A long after that Hotmail started to slowly upgrade users. Much later Yahoo started to upgrade their mailboxes to 250MB and finished with all of them, this all happened relatively fast, and Hotmail still didn’t finish with their own upgrades. However, this relatively very slow upgrade speed is also not what I’m complaining about.

What annoys me is that during the last week or so the general login screen to Hotmail announces that all new mailboxes are at the new size. According to the login page a new account will automatically get 25MB storage, and will be upgraded to 250MB within 30 days.
My account on the other hand still has 2MB. This means that if I create a new account right now, they guarantee that it will begin with much more storage than my current one has.

That’s just wrong. If you can’t upgrade everything at once, start with existing customers. Offering new customers a service that current long-time customers can’t have is vexing, to say the least. It doesn’t really foster any loyalty. It makes customers feel that, even among the free and so not very valued customers anyway, they are second rate. If you can afford the storage space, upgrade people. If you can’t – don’t offer it to anyone else that just decides to open a new account.

Biceps

November 25th, 2004

This is just too amusing.

The Guardian has published a correction to an article:

Jonny Wilkinson (Gregan’s Wallabies plot new England fall, page 27, November 23) is recovering from a biceps injury, not a bicep injury. The singular of biceps is biceps. The plural of biceps is biceps.

This doesn’t sound like an explanation, or an attempt to be educational. This rather sounds more like head-bashing.
The scene I imagine is of an editor catching the poor writer of the original article and repeating this to him in an angry what-kind-of-an-idiot-are-you patronizing tone of voice…
All that’s missing in the correction is the end of the quote going like "Now repeat this 100 times until you get it", which caused the writer such a trauma that they automatically also added the mantra to the apology.

And what may be slightly more amusing – while it’s true that The singular of biceps is biceps and not bicep, the plural can be biceps, but can also be bicepses.

Oh, well. As long as mine works.

Stupid Clever spam

November 15th, 2004

Like almost anyone with an email address these days, I’m quite used to getting the general Nigerians needing help to smuggle money, or offers to enlarge my… err… mortgage. These are all non targeted. The senders got the email address from someplace or tried it randomly.

Today I got a new message, offering me to help promote my website. They had the real website address on the subject line and message body. It was even a website I know. Only it wasn’t mine.

Sans images and other HTML bits:

Hi,

I visited http://stupidsecurity.com, and noticed that you’re not listed on some search engines! I would like to introduce to you an affordable service where we can help enhance your online presence globally.

Search engine submission is an integral part of the success of your web site. Building a web presence means more than just having the right keywords. We offer a star solution that will produce guaranteed results. Our unique search engine positioning technology helps submit your website to over 300,000 search engines and directories every month.

It takes only minutes to sign up for our service. We’ll do the rest! You’ll be surprised how simple it is to now reach out to an international market and increase the visibility of your website.

Do let me know how I may assist you better with workmiracle.com!

Best Regards,
Elisabeth Brown

Sales and Marketing
E-mail: Elisabethbrown@workmiracle.com
http://www.workmiracle.com

Not interested in our www.workmiracle.com service? To be taken off our mailing list, please follow the instructions here.

Now Stupid Security is an excellent and most interesting site, but it’s hardly mine. It is on my blog-roll here, and I have a link to it on some post, but it doesn’t justify deciding it’s mine. And I didn’t get other copies of these message regarding other sites I link to from this blog.

The other option is that they got my email address from there, which is possible since I do have an account there. This seems even more silly, though. Someone should harvest email addresses from a website about security, and then go to all the posters there and offer them to promote the site ?

Yet I find it very hard to believe this was random. The likelihood is too small…

It’s a very targeted message, only targeted at the wrong person, and they had to know that by the way they got the addresses. That would make them both clever and extremely stupid.

Or was this the brainless human engineering trick where I’m supposed to think I got it by mistake, and why not take advantage of the wonderful offer myself? Some people are dumb enough for this, but how many of the people that post on Stupid Security are?
It would take more than a miracle to work…  ;-)

The offer of being indexed in no less than 300,000 search engines is very tempting, though. Especially since an alt tag on an image linked to from the message (not posted here) reads "Guaranteed search engine submission promotion optimixation services".
Who can resist being optimixed on so many search engines, by such professionals, eh?

Jeeves Using Bloglines?

November 11th, 2004

Either Ask Jeeves have some bored new employees, or they officially have some serious concerns about they way people see them (Nice, but not too good in relevancy) and believe that their blog indexing abilities are somewhat lacking.

During the last day this not particularly popular blog of mine has gotten two hits from the ask.com domain. Both from a Bloglines subscriber running a search (a subscribed, repeated search. Not a one time search) there (and not in Ask Jeeves). Says something about how well they believe they index blogs.

One search was for "Ask Jeeves" and one for "Jeeves".
Since I have one entry (Hey, that’s two now) that mentioned Ask Jeeves, it was shown in both their search results. And despite it being very obviously not relevant (but then again, we did say that Jeeves had a relevancy problems with searches, no? Maybe it starts with the real humans and propagate to the engine from there?) they clicked through to read the full post.
And yes, the excerpt is enough to ascertain that the post does not talk about the search engine, but only mentioned in passing that it’s about the question that got into my referrer log.

Is this a good thing, that they show an interest about what people think about them? Or is that an indication that there are problems over there and they’re desperate for something to help?
And what should it mean that the team of a large search engine uses a different search engine to constantly monitor themselves? Is it OK since they don’t index blogs purposefully? Is it an indication that they just now decided blogs are important and are in fact working on it?

Or was it all just a bored employee that wants to know what people think about their company, and picked what they thought to be the best tool for the job? Still says something…

I find it amusing, in any case. Maybe Jeeves won’t.
At least this post is somewhat relevant, if they get here.

Phone Ads with Geolocation

November 10th, 2004

What a truly appalling idea. Sending ads to people’s cellphones when they come near a store, and charging a fee if the person (or at least their phone) enters the store.

Personally, receiving ads on my cellular phone would actually strongly discourage me from buying anything from the ad sponsor. I might, however, go in and out of the store repeatedly, just to make them pay (pun intended).

More than that, this idea has some serious technical problems which I don’t quite see as solvable.

If people receive the ad when they come close to a store, then any person intending in advance to shop there will receive it too. And when they get into the store, the store must then pay for a supposed ad-induced entry… Unlike a web click-through, there’s no good way to separate people that entered because of the ad from people that entered regardless (or despite) of it.

Just brilliant.

The comparison to web advertising would be more like placing an ad at the home page of a site, promoting that selfsame site, and having the owners pay for every viewer of the ad.
Or more realistically (if I must), it’s like tracking who saw an ad, and making a site owner pay when they go there, even if not by a click. Hey, since large ad provider actually track ad viewing today, they could implement it right now. Whenever you see an ad, they can check their cookie to see if you saw a previous ad for the site you’re browsing now. And if so, make the site owner pay. It’s the exact same model. Yet somehow I don’t see people paying for it… So why should it work better with brick-and-mortar?
Paying for anyone who shopped at your place, and who have also seen an ad, is not a good idea. The connection is too tenuous.

Not to mention, since some people are like me in the great love for being spammed with ads on their phone, would the ad service also offer a refund for people getting the ad and not going into the store? After all, the ad sponsor could claim that it was a potential customer who was lost due to the ad… The connection between seeing the ad and not going in, and seeing the ad and going in, is of about the same strength. If you accept one, you should accept the other, no?
Hmmm… This actually could catch up on the web. Anyone buying ads would love to get paid for ads that people saw without ever going into their site afterward. If an ad provider offered this, I’d consider buying ads from them myself…

This is just plain evil

November 9th, 2004

I was looking at my referrer logs (currently not yet a time consuming task, if anyone wonders), and saw that someone decided to ask Jeeves how to "stop customers switching from margarine to butter".

I guess the reference was due to this entry re trans fats (although as usually happens they got to the home page, much after the relevant post was no longer there).

Margarine is bad and unhealthy. It’s to be expected that customer who switched to it from butter, mistakenly believing it’s the healthier alternative, will go back to the better tasting (and healthier) original. And yet there are those who want them to stay… I assume margarine sellers, since apart from greed there’s really no reason for anyone to so…
If this was before the US elections, it would have been worth checking whether the margarine industry supports Bush or Kerry…

Unless… Hmmm… There is another option for people who will want to keep everyone on the health-hazard alternative… Terrorists!
This must be it! I’m not sure if it should fall under bio-terrorism or under usage of chemical weapons. Maybe both.
Osama must be eating fresh butter, and laughing gleefully of all the westerns killing themselves with their margarine.
Listen customers! Switch from margarine to butter, or the terrorists win!

Good customer service for CDBaby

November 5th, 2004

I’ve recently made another order of several CDs from CD Baby.

This latest order arrived with a few problems: one of the CDs was missing1, and two were cracked.
The missing CD was clearly their fault, so I wouldn’t have expected problems from anyone. But in this case they also made no problem at all about sending replacements for the cracked CDs.
They didn’t demand that I’ll mail them the defective CDs back. They didn’t say it was a problem in shipment, or my own fault for asking the CDs without the plastic jewel-box. They just emailed back that they’re sorry, and shipped a new package straight off.

This is the proper way to do it.
I can get the stores that demand returning the original, they’re probably worried about fraud. But from the consumer POV it would create a very bad experience, and anyone demanding I’ll ship something back internationally would have probably lost a customer, especially considering it’s not a repeated occurrence.

While I’m at it, some other (good) things about CD Baby:

  1. They have a very wide selection of artists, some extremely good, and all from RIAA-free independent labels (So if you care, there’s no need to go check the RIAA Radar before purchasing).
  2. The you-may-also-like recommendations made overall much more sense than what I’m used to in other places like Amazon. I’m not sure why, since I suppose both are based on purchase statistics and recommendation of real people, but that’s the way it is.
  3. For returning customers, they send an extra surprise CD in each shipment. From my experience (In the cases where it wasn’t a collection, of course) the match for my taste wasn’t perfect, but still good. And they might have done better if I’d bought in smaller batches, since the obvious matches they had – I already saw and bought.
  4. They are willing to send CDs without the plastic boxes. This both reduces the original shipment charges (less weight/volume), and drastically reduces the chances that someone in border customs will open the package (it being small. You can fit about 10 CDs in the volume of one plastic CD box)). Of course it can result in cases where rough handling will damage the CDs, but this is the only case it happened to me so far, over several purchases. And I’m still not sure this is why these CDs were cracked, considering the cracked ones were inside the package surrounded by perfectly whole CDs.
  5. Samples for audio tracks are usually available for most tracks, are long, and are in MP3.

Certainly, unless I want a specific artist which they don’t sell, they remain my preferred audio CDs store.

1 For which I noticed they have a sort of an excuse. The band changed the name, and reissued the CD with a new cover and track order. Possibly there was someone that didn’t find the requested CD, and another person that knew there is no problem and they have it in stock…

Right rant, wrong ranter

October 26th, 2004

[Update: Got a reply from Charlie]



In an article in the Inquirer a certain Charlie Demerjian rants about how stupid and greedy are the MPAA and RIAA in their effort to insert DRM to use.

He is of course absolutely right, even if he sometimes uses overly strong and excited language (it IS labeled as a rant after all). This is a bad idea, bad for consumers, and on the medium to long run bad for the main players in the music and movie industries themselves.

Worth reading.



He does however state at one point:


Let me put a personal spin on this. I have not bought a CD since 1998. When the record companies sued Napster, I sat back and said ‘this is wrong’. I thought I would wait it out, and not give them my money until a decision was reached. If the record companies prevailed, I would never buy another CD or give any RIAA member my money. If Napster won, I would go back to buying more than the CD or two I bought every week.



Fast forward. The RIAA won and lost. They spent Napster into the ground, and while I think the fight is far from over, Napster is gone. Sticking to my morals, I have not bought a CD since then, and I have the dubious honor of being able to say the last CD I ever bought was Kid Rock’s Devil Without a Cause. The sad part is that I downloaded most of the album from Napster before I bought it, and said ‘hey, this isn’t bad’. I then bought the album. God, I need to bathe.

Hmm…

Not buying CDs at all, although the resolution was “I would never buy another CD or give any RIAA member my money“. There are plenty of CDs by labels and artists not members in the RIAA. What gives?



So I sent him an email:

Overall I, and probably most other people, agree with
almost everything you wrote in this article.



What I have a problem about is that part of your
personal solution was to stop buying CDs completly.

Not buying copy-protected CDs I get, I actually do
that myself.

Not buying CDs from any RIAA associated company, that
I can get as well, and have noticeably reduced the
amount I buy myself. I haven’t stopped completely,
since the artists deserve something even if they are
stupid enough to stay signed with the RIAA, and even
if they get extremely little, but I can understand.



There are however labels which are not associated with
the RIAA. And artist that choose to work with
independent labels. Yet you don’t buy these either…
This should imply that you are:

A. A consumer by the RIAA model, who stopped buying
music because he can download it, end ergo should not
go around attacking the RIAA for their practices.

B. Only like mainstream RIAA artists. In which case
you should admit they provide a good service by
screening all the music you like, and they do deserve
to get paid for sorting the wheat from the chaff for
you. And ergo you should not go around attacking the
RIAA for their practices.

C. Do buy CDs, and falsely make this statement to help
make your point in the rant article. Which tends to
drastically lower the reliability of everything else
you say, and hurt the causes you try to promote. And
Ergo you should not go around attacking the RIAA for
their practices.

D. Are not even aware of independent labels and
artists, and never noticed that someone releases CDs
without being a RIAA member. This is the best option
here, but it’s quite sad. In which case you should try
resources like the RIAA Radar (
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ ) to help you find
which CDs are probably not RIAA, or go to stores that
deal only in independent labels, like for example
CDBaby ( http://www.cdbaby.com ). Or just run a
search, I’m sure you’ll find more. This does however
mean that you haven’t got a clue what is going on in
the music industry, and ergo you should not go around
attacking the RIAA for their practices.



Although the RIAA practices do deserve all the
criticism and attack they get, of course.

I wonder what, and if, I’ll get in reply…



Charlie replies:

Actually, I do promote non-riaa music. My record company of choice is
Go-Kart. :)

So he’s familiar with the concept of Indie music (Though, as a totally irrelevant side note, maybe not so much on indie publishing).

He even likes Go-Kart. A shame he thinks that “All record companies are evil, when they dry up and blow away, I will celebrate. Well, all except one.“, since there are actually one or two (or much more) additional record labels which are not associated with the RIAA, but hey, it’s a start.

And from Go-Kart he gets MP3 files, not audio CDs, so he was honest when he claimed he didn’t buy any CDs. The quality differences are noticeable IMNSHO, but maybe he’s not that discriminating, considering he didn’t hear an actual CD in years.

By the same reasoning, however, he won’t buy CDs even if the RIAA change their ways, but rather buy compressed audio files from them too. Which means claiming that he no longer buys CDs is pretty much empty and hollow. The issue is the purchase of music, not purchase of CDs. So why didn’t he just state that he stoppedt buying music from the RIAA? It would have made a much stronger case for his article…

Well, I’m not the one with the publishing and writing experience…

We don’t use it, whatever it is

October 22nd, 2004

During the last few years it has become a well known fact that trans fats (aka trans fatty acids) are evil. Nowadays, out of the long list of things you really shouldn’t be eating, trans fats probably take first place. Shocking news to all the people who replaced butter with margarine because they thought it was healthier, but that’s scientific progress for you. (While we’re at it, I’ll also take the opportunity to comment that eggs are healthy as well, so long as you don’t eat more than about 3 per day)



Knowledge about the dangers of trans fats is so well spread, that almost everyone have heard by now. Including the owners of a certain large bakery here. Only they must have heard it in conversation, not writing, and didn’t quite make the effort to check what all the fuss is about.

The one important thing they did notice is that it’s considered bad, so customers must be told they don’t get trans fats in their foods, or they’ll stop buying, and the bakery will lose revenue.

Ergo, I recently saw this label on bread packaging:



This bread does not contain the fatty acid “Trans”



They got the name right. Only it’s not a name, but a type.

Not sure if this label is really reassuring. Since they don’t know what they’re talking about, how reliable is their claim that they don’t use it?

Can I be sure it’s not just that the owner asked the baker “Say, are you using any acid fats by “Trans” company?”, got a reply that “We’re not putting in any acids at all in our fat, just plain margarine”, and decided everything is alright then?

Timing is everything

October 20th, 2004

A very good friend of mine has received wedding invitation from relatives living in Florida.

They seem to have spared little expenses. The place where the wedding will be held at is quite pricey. The events will go on for three days, with food and celebrations both on the day before and on the day after the actual wedding ceremony.

The invitation themselves were very elegantly printed on quality paper. And it was not just an invite. It also contained a larger note talking a bit about both families, and an RSVP note and (pre-stamped) envelope that can be used to confirm attendance and food preferance.

And of course the invitation itself, detailing the events of the three days (I changed the dates a I write here from the originals to the 12-14, to prevent the unlikely case that someone will make a connection. The actual selection I made is not entirely coincidental either <g>)

It talk about how on the 12th of November, the day before the ceremony, there will be a big lunch, and so on.

It states that on the 14th of November there will be a large celebratory breakfast.

And it mentiones that the ceremony itself will be held in the evening of the 13th of October.





Did you catch that? I did.

Unfortunately, before printing all those invitations, the happy couple didn’t.

Which naturally left my friend no alternative to returning the RSVP envelope with a note saying that they regret not being able to attend an event that took place before the invitation arrived (OK, so not, this friend have a much nicer sense of humor than I have. a pity).



I’d practically pay good money to see the look the happy couple had (will have? Surely someone must have told them by now?) on their faces when they found out… And no, I’m not being very mean. It’s terribly embarrassing, but not actually damaging. So it’s alright to enjoy it.

Those were really <chuckle> really very invested and expensive invitations…

too close to see

October 16th, 2004

This clinic, doing various eye surgeries for visual disturbances, have come up with a nice promotional material. They sent many ophthalmologists (Possibly other people as well, but I’ll stick to what I know) this small folded page to show clients/customers. On the outside a text instructs to Open the page, hold it in front of you with a stretched arm (about 40cm), and check your visual acuity. If you open the page, the inside have an almost standard visual acuity test page, with lines of text in decreasing sizes, each line marked by the visual acuity level matching the ability to see it clearly.

So far so good. You can look what is the smallest line you see clearly, and check if it’s the standard vision, or if you have a problem. And hopefully (from their POV), if you have a problem you’d notice their company logo and consider contacting them for treatment instead of buying glasses.

As a nice touch, it’s been the Jewish New Year recently, so the lines consist not of random numbers but of a text telling you to have a happy and successful (and so on and so forth) new year. Not good for a proper professional examination, but cute for this crude check.



If you go to an optometrist, or a doctor, to have your vision checked, you’d notice that there are two different checks. One is for distance vision, where you’ll usually sit in a chair a few meters from the test patterns you’ll need to try and read. The second is near vision, where you’d be given some card to hold in your hand at reading distance (about 20cm officially). The near vision of course you’ll only get if you’re over 40 years old, unless there’s a specific medical reason to consider a problem earlier. The important thing here is that there are two different systems, measuring two different problems. Well, not entirely separate of course, you’re using the same optical system after all. But the optical problems that glasses or laser surgeries address are commonly the result of different problems.

When looking to the distance (Infinity officially, but a couple of meters are close enough) you don’t focus your eyes, that is the lenses in the eyes are relaxed and stretched. The common optical problems are caused when light passing through the lens doesn’t focus on the retina, but either in front of it (Myopia – Nearsightedness. More common) or after it (Hypermetropia). This tend to change with age, since as you grow your eyes grow, resulting in light focusing in a larger distance from the front of the retina. That’s why usually glass numbers tend to grow, you need more correction to offset the distance. At about 24 years old, the body stops growing, and you no longer need to change your glasses.

Near vision, or reading, problems start at about the age of 40. In order to look at close objects the muscles around the lens need to push it. The closer the object, the more force needs to be applied in order to allow you to focus. With age the tissue of the lens becomes less flexible and it becomes harder to apply enough force. Then you need reading glasses to provide some of the optical correction. And unlike distance, using reading glasses increases the pace in which the problem grows, since the muscles become less exercised and weaken faster.

There are of course more problems, some also corrected by glasses, contact lenses, or these surgeries, but that’s not the issue here, so I won’t go into them.



Why the long explanations? To emphasize the point that checking near vision and checking distance vision are two different things.

And 40cm has a lot to do with near vision. Not entirely, that’s true, but enough. What you see from 40cm is not very relevant to your visual acuity for distance.

I tried to check myself with their test page. It was very interesting to see I get to 20/15. That’s wonderful! I didn’t see that well for more than 10 years… What an amazing improvement. Nowadays I’m actually more at the 20/20 or 20/30 range. Which is also good, but is normal good, not above normal good like 20/15 would be.



Which brings us to another alight problem with this test page, beside it being irrelevant and showing a clear lack of understanding about how visual acuity is checked (And I’m supposed to let these guys operate on my eyes after that?!). They had the Ft. scale and the 20/x scale. Would have been very nice for most Americans for example, that probably heard someplace you want to see 20/20. But around here the used system is 6/x mostly. Conversion is extremely trivial, but still it’s hard to believe someone around here would have come up with it. Which means they probably stole the idea from some American clinic doing the same thing…



These Y/X scales, if anyone wonders, are not at all complicated. The numbers say that what you see from Y meters an average person would see from X meters. So 20/20 means that you see from 20 meters what an average person would see from 20 meters. 20/40 would mean that what you see from 20 meters, an average person could see just as well from 40 meters. What matters is the ratio, so 20/20 is 6/6 is 5/5, and 20/40 is 6/12 is 5/10.

And these averages were measured a long while ago, and not extremely accurately. And they’re only averages, so seeing 6/7.5 (20/25) is perfectly fine and not reason to go buy glasses (or do some other things like this clinic sells).

Though IMNSHO the law here is a bit extreme, allowing people to drive if they see 6/12 in one eye. Putting a person with one blind eye (so having no stereoscopic vision, depth perception, at all), and another eye that needs to get to half the distance a normal person would in order to see a problem on the road, behind the wheel of a car, strikes me as not particularly safe. But maybe it’s just me, other people probably don’t need to see anything in order to drive safely.



Anyway, to get back on track, these people are using a scale which is rarely used in this country, and employ a meaningless method to do the check. And all that in a promotional material which is meant to attract customers who will pay them a lot of money to perform precise medical procedures on them.

I can’t see that happening.

Hebrew character encoding

October 13th, 2004

Google AdWords ad using Heb text showing only as ?s
This AdWord is in Hebrew. Since that doesn’t quite make it a world-wide seller, and the site I was seeing this on, The Register, did not have anything else relating to Hebrew or Israel on the page, I assume it means the ad was selected by IP geolocating and not just by matching words…



Regardless of this, As you might have noticed, it didn’t come out particularly readable (Yes, there are other characters in Hebrew beside “?“. Honestly). Not that I’m surprised or anything. But even when I tried to manually change the page encoding to various Hebrew and Unicode formats, the ad retained its original appearance (Well, I shouldn’t expect these changes to propagate like that, should I ?).

Which made me wonder why bother? Someone paid good money to place that ad. Newsflash : Unintelligible text doesn’t sell, fellas. No one will click on the link out of idle curiosity.



Yes, the text is there. Yes, it’s just an encoding problem. But I need to work and waste time in order to read it, and quite frankly ads are meant for people that don’t already feel strongly enough about you to waste time and effort.



Hmm… Maybe it looks alright under some defaults with some versions of IE? I hope it at least looked alright on the computer of the marketing guy (or gal, I don’t discriminate. Idiotism is a cross-gender issue) that wrote the ad and bought it. I wonder how tweaked their system was for this.



English can be read everywhere in every browser on every Internet connected computer (I’m ignoring whatever modifications China may require, of course). Even if you look for a targeted audience, do stick to English. I probably won’t click on your ad anyway, but at least it will be because I know it doesn’t interest me, not because I’m not curious enough to waste time finding out if it does…

We don’t use it, but you should

October 12th, 2004

I followed a link to a news story on some AsiaOne site.

At the side of the page there was a very large flash ad, published by AsiaOne, for… Google AdWords.



Oh, I admit they couldn’t replace it with an AdWords ad, since they want a specific ad on their own site, and that’s not what AdWords does.

Still, I find the whole concept of placing one ad in one medium, in order to publish another ad service using a different medium, to be very amusing.

I mean, OK, you can’t use AdWords to publish AdWords on your site, but you can at least place a text ad and not a flash one. You are after all trying to convince viewers that text ads work, no?



Needless to say, their website contain many other adds. All I saw were either by themselves, or by DoubleClick. Not an AdWord in sight on any page.

I wonder if it’s because they think it’s good enough for their viewers but not for them, or if it’s because Google didn’t want them…

A little more awareness

October 10th, 2004

MSN link with tragically clipped text
Another serious goof on the Hotmail / MSN site. They’re getting good at that lately

They are posting links to their own shopping site, with a nice Shop pink! (And raise breast cancer awareness) link. That’s good.

But on some pages, the area they reserve for their sidebar with the links is a bit smaller. OK, so it does not seem smaller, and has the same width, but the pictures may be larger resulting in smaller area of text per item. To solve that they have those wonderful automated scripts that just clip the end of long sentences and replace them with ellipses. Saves space. Problem is, if the object the sentence is right at the end, it might get a bit… lost.

So on the main login page, everything is fine, when seeing various other hotmail pages everything is fine. When sending a message however, that nice clipping thingy starts to work…



End result? MSN encourages everyone to help raise breast cancer



Hmmm… Should increase their sales of related products and medicines. But I’m not sure overall it’s such a good idea for everyone. Don’t do anything MSN tells you to without thinking about it first.



Better be aware of things before you start to raise them, that’s what I always say. Mabye if they heard that, and had exhibited a tad more awareness, they wouldn’t raise anyone’s hackles…